Imperial Navy Officer corps

[rancke]

Each world designates 3% of its tax revenue to military spending, of which 30% goes to the Imperium for Imperial military spending. The remaining 70% goes towards planetary military which is split 60% to navy/marine and 40% to ground forces.

All according to canon or the next best thing (i.e. Striker) except for one rather important detail. The 40/60 split between army and navy is only the average for worlds with breathable atmospheres. For vacuum worlds the split averages 6/94.

For the sake of argument, let's say that 1/3 of the Imperium's budget goes to ground forces/army ( I really don't know about that though ).

No, that's one of the details that Striker fails to provide. But I submit that the Imperial split will be much closer to those of vacuum worlds than to those of worlds with breathable air. Personally I use 10% for the army and 90% for the navy+marines.

The thing is, they are allies as the world's that pay into the Imperium's budgets owe fealty to the Imperium and would send fleets/armies as the Imperium requests. therefore, the total forces that defend the Imperium from outside invaders is very large. Its just not composed of only Imperial units.

Of course not. That's why I look at the total spending, which averages 3%, when I think of the total Imperial military establishment. 3% is low for a nation that is under threat. The US spent 8% at the height of the Cold War. Striker allows up to 10% peacetime military spending.

jump-capable non-imperium fleets would be the reserve fleets, and the system fleets for each world are the planetary navies, I suppose and the limits as to the ranks available to them in chargen would represent how they fit into the Imperial chain of command.

A problem that would be neatly solved by retconning the higher Imperial admirals into five-star admirals and up.

what hostile star nations are of the same class as the Imperium?
Vargr? no, they are too fragmented
Aslan? no, they are comprised of essentially 29 or more pocket empires each working towards their own individual goals, they are not motivated by racial bias.

Agreed, in both cases.

Hivers? They'd rather work through manipulations than through military means

The Hivers aren't hostile or even unfriendly, but it would be a stretch to say they were actually friendly. And to the military mind 'threat' means "what can they do to us if they decide they want to?" not "what do they want to do to us?" (Read that once about what a "threat assesment" was: analysis of capability, not of intentions.)

Solomani? Already beaten.

Already fought to a draw. There's a difference. Has forces equal to 25% of the Imperium's. Unless, that is, a nation still technically at war with an unfriendly nation four times its size happened to spend more than 3% of its GWP on defense. In which case we might be looking at a force 80% of the Imperium's facing perhaps a third of said Imperial forces.

K'Kree? Not strong enough

Strong enough for what? Conquering the Imperium on their own? Not strong enough for that, true. Strong enough to require handling if the Imperium gets involved with war with the Sols and the Zhos simultaneously? You bet! The same can be said of the Julian Protectorate.

Zho's? no, they're really not interested in conquering the Imperium.

You know that and I know that, but only because a Traveller author told us. The Imperial High Command does not enjoy the advantage of a Word from God, and the Zhos have tried very hard to convince the Imperium otherwise. And again, the military mind don't pay half as much attention to intentions as to capability. Intentions can change tomorrow; capabilities takes longer.


Hans

 

[Renaissance Man]

Here's a description of the raising of a fleet and army from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. Might offer some insight into military deployments in the age of city states. Corinth is preparing an expedition to defend a dependency of theirs (Epidamnus) against a rebellious colony, Corcyra.

...the Corinthians, receiving intelligence of the investment of Epidamnus, got together an armament and called for volunteers to go to a colony at Epidamnus, complete political equality being guaranteed to all who chose to go. Any who were not prepared to sail at once might by paying down the sum of fifty Corinthian drachmae have a share in the colony without leaving Corinth. Great numbers took advantage of this proclamation, some being ready to start directly, others paying the requisite forfeit.

In case of their passage being disputed by the Corcyraeans, several cities were asked to lend them a convoy. Megara prepared to accompany them with eight ships, Pale in Cephallenia with four; Epidaurus furnished five, Hermione one, Troezen two, Leucas ten, and Ambracia eight. The Thebans and Phliasians were asked for money, the Eleans for unmanned hulls as well, while Corinth herself furnished thirty ships and three thousand hoplites.

I always thought of the Imperium as having more robust control over space than a Greek city state however. Doesn't the Imperium have an interest in strictly limiting the size of fleets held by its member worlds -- based on the principle of threat assessment mentioned earlier? And what about technical interoperability? The U.S. encourages NATO spending, but they combined still represent only a fraction of US military spending. If intention is not as important as capability, the U.S would likely get nervous about NATO if its military capability came to parallel its own...

 

[rancke]

Doesn't the Imperium have an interest in strictly limiting the size of fleets held by its member worlds -- based on the principle of threat assessment mentioned earlier?

Conflicting interests. It also has an interest in its member worlds being capable of defending themselves against foreign invaders. Besides, it can be argued that the high-tech high-population worlds ARE the Imperium. The Imperium could easily force any single member world, or any couple of dozen member worlds to disarm, unless doing so would make a couple of hundred other member worlds remonstrate with the Emperor.

Pegging a world's contribution to the Imperium as a percentage of its military spending (an idea that I once thought was highly bizarre, since it encouraged member worlds to spend less on thier military and thus become a greater burden on the Imperium) may be as good a way as any to keep Imperial strength balanced with that of the member worlds.

And what about technical interoperability? The U.S. encourages NATO spending, but they combined still represent only a fraction of US military spending. If intention is not as important as capability, the U.S would likely get nervous about NATO if its military capability came to parallel its own...

There is a slight difference between firm allies and unfriendly neutrals, let alone hostile neighbors. Still, I bet the US has contingency plans for wars with their NATO allies.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Still, I bet the US has contingency plans for wars with their NATO allies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412.html

 

[Ishmael]

All according to canon or the next best thing (i.e. Striker) except for one rather important detail. The 40/60 split between army and navy is only the average for worlds with breathable atmospheres. For vacuum worlds the split averages 6/94.
........
No, that's one of the details that Striker fails to provide. But I submit that the Imperial split will be much closer to those of vacuum worlds than to those of worlds with breathable air. Personally I use 10% for the army and 90% for the navy+marines.
........
Of course not. That's why I look at the total spending, which averages 3%, when I think of the total Imperial military establishment. 3% is low for a nation that is under threat. The US spent 8% at the height of the Cold War. Striker allows up to 10% peacetime military spending.

sorry..I lumped some quotes together to make it easier to read and respond to (imho)

I'm afraid the 6:94 ratio that applies to vacuum worlds can be ignored when spreading costs out over the entire 11,000 worlds; there are too few of them to make a major impact unless they wield a disproportionate influence on the overall economy. If that were true, then one could say the UWP procedure was broken. If it were taken into account and had a real affect, it'd be to make the local fleets even larger and make the Imperial fleets proportionally smaller when compared to them.

If Imperial spending is 10:90 as you suggest, the end result would be that Imperial fleets are only about 2/3 the strength of the planetary/reserve fleets and the Imperial ground forces would be about 1/10 the strength of the planetary armies.

Increasing overall budgets to 8% or higher makes more forces, but the proportions of planet/reserve forces to Imperial forces remains the same.
Which is my point here...
"Imperial fleets and armies are not the all-powerful muscle that the game seems to make them out as. Most of the Imperium's military might come from planetary and reserve forces."

A problem that would be neatly solved by retconning the higher Imperial admirals into five-star admirals and up.

I don't think a retcon is a good idea in that it would take rules that were written to simulate a generic setting and force them to conform to a specific universe. I feel it would be to the detriment of any ATU that might exist or come into existence that does not follow the same assumptions as the OTU. It doesn't make any vital improvements and what it changes does not fatally harm the setting.
If any change is to be made to affect officers, then instead of inflating the navy's officer ranks, why not put limits on the ground force's ranks according to the size of the force such a ground force officer can command on the originating world? You wouldn't expect to find a major general in command of a thousand man army on a lo-pop world.
Once you get above a certain rank, the chain of command goes to nobles or politicians anyways, even if they do feel the need to play dress-up in uniforms.

though as an *optional* rule to support a specific bit of background fluff, sure.
just not a change to the core rules.

 

[rancke]

I'm afraid the 6:94 ratio that applies to vacuum worlds can be ignored when spreading costs out over the entire 11,000 worlds; there are too few of them to make a major impact unless they wield a disproportionate influence on the overall economy. If that were true, then one could say the UWP procedure was broken. If it were taken into account and had a real affect, it'd be to make the local fleets even larger and make the Imperial fleets proportionally smaller when compared to them.

That's not the parallel I was trying to draw from the 6:94 split. Worlds without breathable atmospheres spend less on their armies than worlds with breathable atmospheres. Why? Presumably because worlds without breathable atmospheres have less use for soldiers. And the Imperium is supposed to "rule the space between the worlds". How much use does it have for soldiers? How many worlds are they going to have to garrison? Hopefully very few.

If Imperial spending is 10:90 as you suggest, the end result would be that Imperial fleets are only about 2/3 the strength of the planetary/reserve fleets and the Imperial ground forces would be about 1/10 the strength of the planetary armies.

You're making some strange and incomprehensible comparisons here. You can't just compare X% with Y%. You have to consider X% of what and Y% of what.

Increasing overall budgets to 8% or higher makes more forces, but the proportions of planet/reserve forces to Imperial forces remains the same.
Which is my point here...

Whereas my point was comparing Imperial forces with Solomani Confederation forces.

"Imperial fleets and armies are not the all-powerful muscle that the game seems to make them out as. Most of the Imperium's military might come from planetary and reserve forces."

That's not exactly news. To be precise, 70% of the Imperium's military might comes from planetary forces. Though the Imperium may have some advantage when it comes to applying its forces.

I don't think a retcon is a good idea in that it would take rules that were written to simulate a generic setting and force them to conform to a specific universe.

I don't think it would. What it would do was to stop taking rules that were written to simulate a generic setting and force a specific universe to conform to them. 'Generic' means "having no particularly distinctive quality or application". Frankly, I think a specific game setting ought to have oodles of distinctive quality. I think having the Imperial Navy being organized differently than a planetary navy one thousandth its size would be a feature, not a bug.

I feel it would be to the detriment of any ATU that might exist or come into existence that does not follow the same assumptions as the OTU.

I don't follow your argument here.

It doesn't make any vital improvements and what it changes does not fatally harm the setting.

I disagree about that. The very reason I advocate a retcon is that it is implausible and detrimental to the verisimilitude of the setting.

If any change is to be made to affect officers, then instead of inflating the navy's officer ranks, why not put limits on the ground force's ranks according to the size of the force such a ground force officer can command on the originating world? You wouldn't expect to find a major general in command of a thousand man army on a lo-pop world.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't expect many low-pop worlds to be sovereign, so in most cases the officer in charge of the military forces would be appropriate to the size of the troops the owning world had stationed there. And for those few low-pop worlds that were sovereign, I would expect a four-star general in charge of the army.

But be that as it may, I would expect to find an army large enough to warrant a four-star general in charge on any world with a population level of 7. I would expect to find an army with a sizable number of four-star generals on any world with a population level of 8. And I would be puzzled to find that not a single world with population levels of 9 and 10 had decided to appoint five- and maybe even six-star generals.

Once you get above a certain rank, the chain of command goes to nobles or politicians anyways, even if they do feel the need to play dress-up in uniforms.

Yes, an on worlds with high-middle and high-population worlds that certain rank is general or even marshal.

though as an *optional* rule to support a specific bit of background fluff, sure.
just not a change to the core rules.

I have no intention of changing the core rules (Not much, anyway ). I just want to establish that they apply differently to navies of single worlds and navies of 11,000 world empires.


Hans

 

[flykiller]

Still, I bet the US has contingency plans for wars with their NATO allies.

yep, we have plans for everything. an entire department in the pentagon is devoted to plans for this, plans for that. we have plans for invading mexico, canada, israel, the galapagos. they may be buried at the bottom of the last filing cabinet in a corner of the pentagon's bottom basement, covered in dust, but they get pulled out and updated by some intern 2nd lieutenant once a year, then they're filed away again.

plans for iran are probably updated daily.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>Read that once about what a "threat assesment" was: analysis of capability, not of intentions.

maximum capability

>Still, I bet the US has contingency plans for wars with their NATO allies

wars IN their allies rather than AGAINST their allies. That is an important planning difference as it presumes co-operation or at least a lack of hindrance in any areas especially "government". The last updated plan for war against the UK was prior to WW2 when the US had rainbow plans for war against each of the top (10 ?) world powers of the time.

apparently these plans for Afghanistan in 2001 were a couple of pages of general notes and references to the various Soviet campaigns

 

[Peter Schutze]

>If Imperial spending is 10:90 as you suggest, the end result would be that Imperial fleets are only about 2/3 the strength of the planetary/reserve fleets and the Imperial ground forces would be about 1/10 the strength of the planetary armies.

Makes sense to me. The imperial forces would however be the offensive elite forces of the mix. The planetary forces do the tedious garrison work after the Marines and Army smash the enemy.

>Presumably because worlds without breathable atmospheres have less use for soldiers.

Depends on your definitions. I have always assumed that army includes everything above the beat cop/ detective level. In hostile environments there should probably have a higher proportion of security / emergency services forces than shirtsleeve environments. Overall though it would average out near enough to the same for it not to matter over a sector.

 

[Ishmael]

You're making some strange and incomprehensible comparisons here. You can't just compare X% with Y%. You have to consider X% of what and Y% of what.

Imp army is 30%*10% = 3% of total military budget
non-imp army is 70%*40% = 28% of total military budget
28% is nearly 10 times larger than 3%, therefore non-imp armies are nearly 10 times larger than imp armies
Imp navy is 30%*90% = 27% of total military budget
non-imp navy is 70%*60% = 42% of total military budget
27% is just under 2/3rd's of 42%, therefore the imp navy is about 2/3rd's the strength of the non-imp navy
Nothing strange or incomprehensible here.

That's not exactly news. To be precise, 70% of the Imperium's military might comes from planetary forces. Though the Imperium may have some advantage when it comes to applying its forces.

obviously, however none of the materials/sources that I can recall over the past 30 years deals with the fact that non-imp navies within the Imperium are 150% greater in strength than the Imperial Navy. IIRC, most of the figures concerning the Imperial navy that imply squadrons in each system make no mention of this extra force being present which would inflate the force levels even more. Nor do I recall any materials that discuss the diplomatic hurdles/maneuverings necessary to get fleets from disparate sovereign world governments to work together smoothly. This news is just as overlooked as it is old.

I don't think it would. What it would do was to stop taking rules that were written to simulate a generic setting and force a specific universe to conform to them. 'Generic' means "having no particularly distinctive quality or application". Frankly, I think a specific game setting ought to have oodles of distinctive quality. I think having the Imperial Navy being organized differently than a planetary navy one thousandth its size would be a feature, not a bug.

By doing that, you force anyone who plays Traveller to conform to your vision of how the Imperium works. This would force anyone who would choose NOT to use the OTU setting to use your assumptions of how navies work, regardless of the setting they have planned for their own games.
Essentially, this is a ref's decision. One that the original pre-Imperium CT generic rules allowed refs to make. Make this a retcon of the setting with optional rules specific to the OTU setting, but NOT in the core rules.

I disagree about that. The very reason I advocate a retcon is that it is implausible and detrimental to the verisimilitude of the setting.

Insufficient reason as such things are subjective. If that were all the reason that was needed, then I could suggest a dozen or more points that required a retcon. But unless all players agreed with my suggestions, my suggestions would simply become ATU/IMTU writings.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't expect many low-pop worlds to be sovereign, so in most cases the officer in charge of the military forces would be appropriate to the size of the troops the owning world had stationed there. And for those few low-pop worlds that were sovereign, I would expect a four-star general in charge of the army.

As far as I understand things, any world with a government that's NOT 'captive' is sovereign. And why would you expect '4-star' generals to be in charge of the ground forces without considering the actual manpower? Lo pop worlds have less than 10,000 people, which would make for a tiny army.... does that mean you'd put a '4-star' general in charge of 1,000 men ( 10% or more of any lo-pop world's population whereas the US military utilizes about 3.6% of the US population)?

Yes, an on worlds with high-middle and high-population worlds that certain rank is general or even marshal.

No, that certain rank can be "Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Commander-in-Chief ", etc. and prior military service need not be a requirement.

I have no intention of changing the core rules (Not much, anyway ). I just want to establish that they apply differently to navies of single worlds and navies of 11,000 world empires.

And they do; the rule limiting the top rank available to planetary and reserve navies see to that.
What I do think needs to be looked into in some detail is how the various navies work together despite possibly byzantine chains of command. And how other races handle this. ( Could it be that one reason Earth won the early interstellar wars is from problems passing orders along such tangled chains of command, communications snafus between fleets from different cultures/languages, or inter-fleet rivalries within the assembled forces of the Imperium? Maybe the Solomani consolidate their fleets without setting aside reserve fleets under the command of sovereign worlds and avoid such potential problems. )
And how the various ground forces work together too as there would be many of the same issues.

 

[rancke]

Imp army is 30%*10% = 3% of total military budget
non-imp army is 70%*40% = 28% of total military budget
28% is nearly 10 times larger than 3%, therefore non-imp armies are nearly 10 times larger than imp armies.

Ah, I see. Yes, the sum total of all planetary armies would be ten times larger than the total Imperial Army. So what? I don't see the problem.

Imp navy is 30%*90% = 27% of total military budget
non-imp navy is 70%*60% = 42% of total military budget
27% is just under 2/3rd's of 42%, therefore the imp navy is about 2/3rd's the strength of the non-imp navy
Nothing strange or incomprehensible here.

And if the split was 40:60, the planetary arimes would be 2.5 times larger than the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy would be 4/9ths the strength of the planetary navies. So? I'm not going to ask what the difference is, that's obvious, but what's the significance of the difference? Why is one bad and the other good?

Obviously, however none of the materials/sources that I can recall over the past 30 years deals with the fact that non-imp navies within the Imperium are 150% greater in strength than the Imperial Navy. IIRC, most of the figures concerning the Imperial navy that imply squadrons in each system make no mention of this extra force being present which would inflate the force levels even more.

I think you're right, but how is that relevant to the subject under discussion?

Nor do I recall any materials that discuss the diplomatic hurdles/maneuverings necessary to get fleets from disparate sovereign world governments to work together smoothly. This news is just as overlooked as it is old.

NATO seems to manage, and the Imperium has had 500 years to figure it out. And, again, I don't see why it matters.

By doing that, you force anyone who plays Traveller to conform to your vision of how the Imperium works.

I do? Wow! I had no idea I had such power! Marc Miller himself couldn't force me to conform to any vision that I didn't like, but I can force anyone who plays Traveller to conform to mine. If only there was a way I could harness that power for good instead of evil...

This would force anyone who would choose NOT to use the OTU setting to use your assumptions of how navies work, regardless of the setting they have planned for their own games.

Please explain to me how that works. I'm going to need finer control when I turn my attention to fixing GURPS.

Seriously, how would retconning the rank structure of the Imperial Navy in the OTU change anything other than the OTU?

Essentially, this is a ref's decision.

For the OTU it's ultimately Marc Miller's decision.

One that the original pre-Imperium CT generic rules allowed refs to make. Make this a retcon of the setting with optional rules specific to the OTU setting, but NOT in the core rules.

Well, of course. I thought that went without saying.

The very reason I advocate a retcon is that it is implausible and detrimental to the verisimilitude of the setting.

Insufficient reason as such things are subjective. If that were all the reason that was needed, then I could suggest a dozen or more points that required a retcon.

Feel free to suggest them. Maybe we can come up with satisfactory handwaves. Maybe you can convince Marc Miller to change it. Who knows?

But unless all players agreed with my suggestions, my suggestions would simply become ATU/IMTU writings.

Not at all. If Marc Miller and his minions thought your ideas had merit, they could become part of the OTU of the future.

As far as I understand things, any world with a government that's NOT 'captive' is sovereign.

Another one of those universal truths that don't actually make sense. And which we've seen canonical world writeups that contradicted.

And why would you expect '4-star' generals to be in charge of the ground forces without considering the actual manpower?

For the same reason Haiti has no less than four general officers.

Lo pop worlds have less than 10,000 people, which would make for a tiny army.... does that mean you'd put a '4-star' general in charge of 1,000 men ( 10% or more of any lo-pop world's population whereas the US military utilizes about 3.6% of the US population)?

If it was the army of a sovereign nation? I certainly would.

No, that certain rank can be "Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Commander-in-Chief ", etc. and prior military service need not be a requirement.

No, those would be the people above the 'certain rank' you mentioned.

I just want to establish that they apply differently to navies of single worlds and navies of 11,000 world empires.

And they do; the rule limiting the top rank available to planetary and reserve navies see to that.

That rule is broken too, and for exactly the same reason. It's an MT attempt to fix the problem, but unfortunately it preserves the central discrepancy.


Hans

 

[aramis]

The issue of minor worlds, in the Imperium, is that the 3I will assign the equivalency for imperial member worlds... Sure, Republika Bananastan with 1000 soldiers and 10000 people might call their head soldier General of the Armies and put him in 5 stars, but when the JIS calls him up, his JIS insignia is most likely going to be 1 star (O7), or even 3 large starbursts (O6). Simply because, in the grand scheme of things, that's what he's competent to command. If he proves himself in war, sure.

Now, The Peoples Popular Feudalist Republics of New Sca, with 9E9 people, and 5E8 people under arms might call Donnan Brokenheart, their head of Forces, the Duke Marshal, and put him in a ducal coronet with crossed cutlasses, but when the JIS comes down, odds are he's getting 4 stars... in part, because he's bringing 5E7 troops organized into several field army groups along with integral transports. His men call him "Your Warlike Grace" and the other generals call him "Field Marshal," and the Imperial Nobles call him Sir Brokenheart...

Local titles don't always translate to imperial titles directly (See CT TTB...)

 

[rancke]

The issue of minor worlds, in the Imperium, is that the 3I will assign the equivalency for imperial member worlds... Sure, Republika Bananastan with 1000 soldiers and 10000 people might call their head soldier General of the Armies and put him in 5 stars, but when the JIS calls him up, his JIS insignia is most likely going to be 1 star (O7), or even 3 large starbursts (O6). Simply because, in the grand scheme of things, that's what he's competent to command. If he proves himself in war, sure.

Plausible enough. I do something similar with planetary nobles.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Plausible enough. I do something similar with planetary nobles.


Hans

For noble titles, it is explicit in canon. See LD article on nobles...

 

[rancke]

For noble titles, it is explicit in canon. See LD article on nobles...

You must have a different Library Data than I. As far as I can see from a quick browse through, planetary nobles are not mentioned by one single word. More's the pity. If they had been mentioned, maybe the author of the essay would have realized that he was jumping straight from the planetary gentry to the Imperial nobility, with no room for planetary nobles...[*]


Hans

[*] If someone wants to dispute that remark, could they start another topic, please?​

 

[rancke]

Here's an idea I just had to explain the admirals counters in FFW:

Imperial Commodores carry one star.
Imperial Fleet Admirals/Lower Third (aka rear admirals) carry two stars.
Imperial Fleet Admirals/Middle Third (aka vice admirals) carry three stars.
Imperial Fleet Admirals/Upper Third carry four stars.
Imperial Fleet Admirals with fleet command carry one big star.
Sector Admirals carry two big stars.
Grand Admirals carry three big stars.


Hans

 

[aramis]

It would be simpler, Hans, to simply make Sector Admirals 2 star, Fleet Admirals 1 star, Commodores four large 'bursts, and Rear Admiral is a commodore of something other than a squadron. (Likewise, Vice should then be a Fleet who isn't commanding a fleet, but some sector level non-fleet command, like Sector Intel, or the Depot.)

But that runs against the JIS rank insignia defined in TD15...

It's easiest simply to ignore 5FW's graphics as "not thought through by GDW"...

 

[rancke]

It would be simpler, Hans, to simply make Sector Admirals 2 star, Fleet Admirals 1 star, Commodores four large 'bursts, and Rear Admiral is a commodore of something other than a squadron. (Likewise, Vice should then be a Fleet who isn't commanding a fleet, but some sector level non-fleet command, like Sector Intel, or the Depot.)

That would work too, provided the rank-equivalency problem was fixed, but I don't see why it would be simpler.

But that runs against the JIS rank insignia defined in TD15...

Wouldn't you know it, the one copy of TD I can't lay my hands on right away is #15.

It's easiest simply to ignore 5FW's graphics as "not thought through by GDW"...

If the canonical rank system worked as is, with no discrepancies, I certainly wouldn't advocate changing anything to conform to FFW's counters. But since the canonical system IMO needs a retcon anyway, said retcon might as well help fit FFW into the big picture.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

I think you're right, but how is that relevant to the subject under discussion?

Because, if you are going to work out a command structure for the forces in the Imperium, it'd be bad to ignore the greater majority of them.

NATO seems to manage, and the Imperium has had 500 years to figure it out. And, again, I don't see why it matters.

Each world may have its own training, tactics, equipment and logistical tail that is not fully compatible with other worlds' forces. Each world's forces will have a chain of command tied to its own government. You'll need to work out how that would work with a chain of command that ties it to Imperial forces, or how it interconnects with those of worlds where rivalries and prejudices may occur. Cultural differences may be a factor as well...
To say "Oh...It's the future, They'll have worked things out by then." is a shameless cop-out.

I do? Wow! I had no idea I had such power! Marc Miller himself couldn't force me to conform to any vision that I didn't like, but I can force anyone who plays Traveller to conform to mine. If only there was a way I could harness that power for good instead of evil...

The term 'retcon' would seem to imply an official change to the game. An unnecessary one, in my opinion. But one you act as though would be accepted as a matter of course. I voiced my opposition to it and gave my reasons why. If I misinterpreted what you meant, then you should have clarified it several posts ago when I first voiced my reasons to oppose it.
You response here is snarky and condescending; shame on you. Such an attitude accomplishes nothing but to display an ugly personality and stifle discussion.

For the same reason Haiti has no less than four general officers.

ah..I see now...you're stuck on the names of the ranks instead of what the ranks represent.
It can be gathered from the MT advanced chargen that the ranks relate to relative 'power' within the Imperial navy.

O7 system squadron
O8 reserve fleet or a subsector fleet
O9 Sector Fleet
O10 Grand Admiral

A commander of a system squadron, no matter what rank he held in his own world's military would be, at best, an O7 in an Imperial Navy's structure, for example. An O8 might command a subsector squadron at most even if he were the highest ranking officer in his world's navy, and so on. Based on the obvious progression, an O10 would represent Domain level commands.
All four of these ranks correspond to rank'6' from the basic chargen; "Admiral"
There is no reason why this progression wouldn't hold true for ground forces as well.
Of course, it is more complicated than that. I would not expect a commander of a system squadron that has 5 type "T" patrol cruisers to carry the same effective Imperial rank as a commander of a system squadron that consisted of a few hundred thousand dtons of hulls. Well, maybe if there were some obscure diplomatic reasons, anyways.... but that's a roleplay issue....

No, those would be the people above the 'certain rank' you mentioned.

more of an illustration of how the chain of command transitions from military rank to non-military government ranks... the ones that tell the military what they can have and use, and what they have to do and where they can do it. Given the emphasis on the nobility within the navy, I'd expect that transition to be nearly seamless for that service branch; certainly smoother than with ground forces, although that might not be true depending on a world's culture and government.

I had a thought on my long drive home...
Just how much control over the larger forces would a very high ranking officer actually have? The communications lag would prevent any meaningful(timely) information or orders to be passes back and forth. It seems to me that they'd be limited to overall long-term strategies and policies as direct command of forces would be impossible unless they were AT the line of battle, which would place them far away from *their* commander. How effective can an order be, that's based on grossly out-of-date intelligence when it won't be acted upon for several weeks IF the order is able to rendezvous with its recipient in the first place? What would the Fifth Frontier War look like if it were played blind, using TCS and Striker's command/control rules?

That rule is broken too, and for exactly the same reason. It's an MT attempt to fix the problem, but unfortunately it preserves the central discrepancy.

Lots of rules are broken and/or give stoopid results. The OTU is built on them. If you repair the major ones instead of fiddling with the trivial ones, the OTU will fall apart. The curse is that there's no consensus one which rules are broken.

 

[rancke]

Because, if you are going to work out a command structure for the forces in the Imperium, it'd be bad to ignore the greater majority of them.

But I'm not trying to work out a command structure for all the forces in the Imperium; if I'm trying to work out a command structure for anything, it's for the Imperial Navy alone. So I think it makes sense to ignore the forces that are not part of the IN.

Each world may have its own training, tactics, equipment and logistical tail that is not fully compatible with other worlds' forces. Each world's forces will have a chain of command tied to its own government. You'll need to work out how that would work with a chain of command that ties it to Imperial forces, or how it interconnects with those of worlds where rivalries and prejudices may occur. Cultural differences may be a factor as well...

There are many hundreds of member worlds with their own navies. Trying to deal with them all is an unrealistic undertaking. And I see no reason why I can't take them for granted. Saying that the Imperium must have worked out a modus vivendum with them is not a cop-out; it's a given.

To say "Oh...It's the future, They'll have worked things out by then." is a shameless cop-out.

A realistic curtailment of the subject matter.

The term 'retcon' would seem to imply an official change to the game.

True. Nothing would please me more than persuading Marc Miller to do so. I don't see anything odious in that, any more than I find it odious that some people want to "force" me to keep using the existing flawed rules and setting details rather than having TPTB fix them.

An unnecessary one, in my opinion. But one you act as though would be accepted as a matter of course.

Act? Act how? I think my logic is sound and the arguments that has been levelled against it unsound. What's wrong with that?

I voiced my opposition to it and gave my reasons why. If I misinterpreted what you meant, then you should have clarified it several posts ago when I first voiced my reasons to oppose it.

You response here is snarky and condescending; shame on you. Such an attitude accomplishes nothing but to display an ugly personality and stifle discussion.

You made a ridiculous accusation against me. Rather than take offense, I chose to use irony to illustrate why I felt it was ridiculous. If you think I was being unfair, I suggest you either explain how I'm going to force you to conform to my ideas or drop your claim.

ah..I see now...you're stuck on the names of the ranks instead of what the ranks represent.

It can be gathered from the MT advanced chargen that the ranks relate to relative 'power' within the Imperial navy.

Yes, but not to the relative power within the Imperial forces. That's the problem. The Imperial Navy doesn't exist in a vacuum (so to speak ). Have a look at these roughly equivalent navy and army formations and the ranks that command them:

Navy...............................................................................Army

Ship (Navy captain (O6)).....................................................Regiment (colonel (O6))
Division <2 ships> (?)[*]......................................................Brigade <2 regiments> (brigadier (O7))
Half-squadron <4 ships> (?)[*].............................................Division <2 brigades> (major general (O8))
Squadron <8 ships> (Commodore (O7?)).................................Army corps <2-3 divisions> (lt. general (O9))
System fleet <2-3 squadrons>.............................................Army <2-3 corps> (General (O10)
Numbered fleet <8-10 squadrons> Fleet Admiral (O8?!)..............No equivalent
Named fleet <2-16 numbered fleets> Sector Admiral (O9?!!))......No equivalent
Entire Navy <~22 named fleets> (Grand admiral (O10?!!!)).........No equivalent

I repeat: An admiral commanding a fleet that covers an entire subsector is NOT the equivalent of a major general, but someone much higher up the chain of command.


Hans

[*] EDIT: To head off a digression: I'm not suggesting that divisions and half-squadrons would be distinct command levels the way brigades and divisions are; I'm showing why a squadron is the equivalent of an army corps. At least, a squadron of battleships is.​