Imperial Navy Officer corps

[Garyius2003]

Current practice is that only the ship's crew may call a commander or lieutenant commander commanding a vessel "Captain." Even then, the vessel must be also a ship, and the CO must be assigned the command, not acting command. This dates back to the 1830's, BTW. And, for the record, the position is not "Captain" but "Commanding Officer" (military) or "Ship's Master" (Civil). Note that submarines are Boats, not ships...


Note further: the enlisted ranks correspond to USN ranks of the 1950-1980 range. The terminology used in the other games, however, corresponds to RN terminology: Ratings (to E6) and Warrants (Chiefs E7-E9). THe USN abolished warrants in the 1850's, turning most into commissioned officers; WWI saw the US introduce a totally new system of Warrant Grades which are not mirrored in the older system except by title. To wit, a US warrant is an officer by presidential commission, while a commissioned officer is an officer & gentleman by congressional commission; they rank above cadets and below ensigns, and are addressed in the navy by their specialty: Gunner, Botswain, Machinist, etc. UK Warrants are senior NCOs.

US Navy Chiefs who are in charge of a small vessel (LCAC, landing craft, tug) are called 'craftmasters' now.

Just to make things more confusing, all US Navy Warrant Officers are commissioned. This is because the lowest US Navy Warrant rank is CW-2 (through CW-5). However, in the other services a W-1 is the intro warrant rank, which is a warrant and not a commission. In theory the Navy could appoint a W-1, under current law, but they don't.

Just to make things even odder, chiefs and warrants can become Limited Duty Officers. They get a commission in the regular navy officer ranks, but are expected to stick with their functional area and do not follow a more normal officer path of different education postings and staff jobs, as well as aiming for command.

The Marines also have LDOs. In both cases, an LDO could perhaps rise as far as Captain/Col.

 

[Ranger]

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.​

Ok, there are a couple of issues with this line of argument. First, I would say your chart seems to be a little off. It should be based on a "maneuver element" of some sort so we can establish a base line for comparison. The problem is, even at this basic level, you start running into problems with comparisons. On the Army side it should be the battalion, which is an O5 command, but on the Navy side, if we use capital ships as the maneuver elements, we are at an O6 command already from the start. But, it is what it is, we are dealing with very different tactical structures and we have to accept that.

So, let’s go to the chart, but rework it for tactical responsibility:

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

Ship (1 capital ship (O6))...........................................Regiment-Brigade (3-5 MEs (O6))
Division (2 ships (Senior Captain Present)).....................Independent Brigade (3-5 MEs (O6/O7))
Half-squadron (4 ships (Senior Captain Present))............Independent Brigade (3-5 MEs (O6/O7))
Squadron (4-9 ships (Commodore (O7)))……...................Independent Brigade (3-5 MEs (O6/O7))
Task Force (8-27 ships (Senior Commodore (O7)))…........Division (9-25 MEs (O8))
Numbered fleet (64-270 ships (Fleet Admiral (O8))).........Army Corps (18-75 MEs (O9))
Named fleet (128-3500+ ships (Sector Admiral (O9)))......Army (36-375 MEs) (O10)
Entire Navy (~22 named fleets (Grand admiral (O10))......................No equivalent

Rank systems are designed to service the command requirements of a military force. The re-worked chart works to show how you can do that with the system as is. A squadron is actually more on par with an Independent Brigade rather than an Army Corps. There is a slight disparity between the services, but not a huge one where responsibility is concerned. But it seems perfectly reasonable to me given the command level requirements.

This is also consistent with CT character generation, which provided for a much easier commission and promotion probability in the Army over the Navy, thus implying that, in CT at least, if you wanted rank, you joined the Army (5+ without any bonus). If you wanted space skills, you joined the Navy and accepted your chances of getting a commission were small (9+ even with a bonus for high Soc). Book 4 changed that, but MT basic CG is the same as CT. That implies that everyone in the Traveller universe would know it is much easier to get a commission and get promoted in the Army thus making Army ranks “cheaper” by comparison. Being a Navy Ensign means a lot more than being an Army Lieutenant in the Traveller universe. Therefore, I would argue, being a Navy Admiral of any rank means a lot more than being an Army General of any rank in the Traveller universe.

You seemed to be totally focused on the disparity of a “local” Army commander having such a higher rank than their Navy counterpart due to the grater firepower and tactical responsibility of the Navy commander, but there are lots of examples of this thing in the real world today where it causes no problem.

Let’s just take a look at the modern US Army. Company command is an O3 position.

A tank company has 14 M1s each armed with a 120mm cannon, a .50 caliber heavy machine gun, and 2 x 7.62 general purpose machine guns. By itself it can cover a 4 kilometer section of the battlefield.

A Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (BIFV) company has 14 BIFVs each with a 25mm chain gun, a TOW II missile launcher, and a 7.62 general purpose machine gun plus over 60 dismounted infantry with 9 more general purpose machine guns or 9 Javelin missile systems. It has the same battlefield coverage as an M1 company.

A light infantry company has roughly 100 infantry small arms, 6 general purpose machine guns, 3 Javelin missile systems, and 2 light mortars. By itself it can cover roughly 900 meters.

So, should an M1 company be an O5 command and a BIFV company an O4 command, rather than an O3 command because they have so much more fire power and can cover so much more of the battlefield than a light infantry company? You could probably make that argument logically, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Going farther with this, a light infantry battalion is an O5 command. It has 3 light infantry companies, 4 TOW II missiles, and a medium mortar platoon. It can cover roughly 3 kilometers of battlefield. But if an M1 company is attached to support a light infantry battalion, the M1 company commander is under the command of the light infantry battalion commander, even though the M1 company arguably has more combat power and can cover more of the battlefield itself than the entire light infantry battalion. Nobody has any problem with this arrangement. And this is within the same service. It doesn’t take into account the variance of tactical and operational conditions between the Army and the Navy.

Ultimately, the Army and the Navy have different officer structures because they are built in very different ways. The Army is a labor intensive service. You take manpower, and you equip it in a way to accomplish a specific set of missions. The Navy is a capital intensive service. You design ships to do specific sets of missions, then you find people to crew them. The command requirements for those two types of forces are very different, and produce different rank structures to deal with them.

Just my thoughts.

 

[OIT]

Chris Thrash found a breakdown of the US Navy into its different ranks for me. Here are some calculations I've made based on those figures:

Then the average personnel of a regular fleet (excluding the reserve fleet) would be 281,810 (of which 93,940 would be civilian employees).

Given the number of potential inaccuracies, it would probably be acceptable to round those figures off to 300,000 and 100,000.

In which case a fleet would need 126 flag officers: 6 admirals, 18 vice admirals, 42 rear admirals, and 66 commodores.

(As a bonus, we also get an estimated size of the entire Imperial Navy (not counting reserve fleets): 90 million men).

EDIT: Added a left-out assumption above.


Hans

Hans,
Please forgive my late entry into the discussion. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your application of the transitive property of mathematics above (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) as the subjects in question are `apples and oranges'. They are not directly comparable for the same reasons the city government of Aarhus and the government of the country of Luxembourg are not directly comparable. One has several more functions than the other.

The present day U.S. Navy uses a bifurcated chain of command. There are two seperate chains for each and every operational unit in the Navy. They are named (quite originally) the operational chain of command and the administrative chain of command. Operations (killing people and breaking things) are the bailiwick of the operational chain whereas all support functions (MPT&E, logistics, acquisition, procurement, maintenance, repair, shipbuilding, bases, military medicine, fleet and family services, legal, etc) are all in the administrative chain.

The majority of flag officers are in billlets in the administrative chain.

Given the force structure presented in your first post, I think a reasonable officer billet structure for an operational fleet as described above would be:

Fleet Staff: O8 FLT Commander, O8 Deputy, 0-2 O7 (Chief of Staff and N3 would likely be senior O6 and may promote during their tour in the job), and no others. The Fleet staff flags are assignable as Task Force commanders.

BATRON Staff: O7 Commodore, O7 Deputy, and no others. The BATRON flags are assignable as Task Group commanders.

CRURON and DESRON Commodores (position title not rank here) are assignable as Task Unit commanders.

Ships:
BB, Fleet Carrier: O6 CO
Cruiser, other carriers: O5 CO, O6 squadron CO (see note 1)
DD, Fleet Escort: O3-O4 CO, O5 squadron CO
DE, CE: O2-O3 CO

Note 1: As Ranger identified, CO positions are based on the role of the force commanded and number of personnel under command. If memory serves, Sloan class Fleet Escorts have roughly 45 crew. In most NATO navies, that would mean an O3 CO. In the U.S. Navy (being top-heavy and risk averse) that would be an O4 CO. Battleships have historically been O6 COs in all navies. Therefore, from officer development, force structure, career milestone, and fleet roles, a cruiser makes sense as an O5 command. It is not uncommon for ships with 350+ crewmembers in NATO and US navies to be commanded by O5s (Spruance class, Molders class, Ticonderoga - baseline 1, etc).

Amphibious and Tank forces may be assigned to fleets administratively or they may only be assigned for specific operations. Depending on your view of their place in the TO&E, and their size, would determine whether they would add any flags to the above list.

In short, I could see an operational fleet having 2 O8 and 6-8 O7, but not much more unless the `fleet' role is changed to say, include bases, for example. I can't think of many good reasons to do that (but can think of many reasons not to), but am open to discussion on the topic.

IMHO, the first O9 in the chain of command would be the geographic theater commander, for example, COMJEWELLFLT (Comander Jewell Fleets - having operational command of all fleets in the Jewell theater of war).

Hope it helps,
OIT

 

[rancke]

Ok, there are a couple of issues with this line of argument. First, I would say your chart seems to be a little off. It should be based on a "maneuver element" of some sort so we can establish a base line for comparison.

You're mixing up command level and rank. There's a strong correlation, sure, but it is not a one-to-one correspondence. Command levels is why the 19th Century USN had three flag ranks. Rank considerations was the reason those three ranks were four-, three-, and two-star admirals rather than three-, two-, and one-star. In other words, command authority is why one officer obeys the orders of another; rank is why one officer has three stars on his shoulders and another has two.

The same rank can be stretched over several command levels; but if it is, its equivalence in other services is that of the highest level (example, 18th Century Royal Navy post-captain). Contrariwise, going from one rank to the next can skip a rank level (example, 18th Century USN captain to rear admiral (and Danish 21st Century navy captain to rear admiral)).

The baseline I begin with is the assumption that a navy captain is the rank-equivalent of an army colonel.

The problem is, even at this basic level, you start running into problems with comparisons. On the Army side it should be the battalion, which is an O5 command, but on the Navy side, if we use capital ships as the maneuver elements, we are at an O6 command already from the start.

And if we use the ship of any size as the maneuver elements, we are at O3 command at the start. So let's not. That way, we won't have to debate why battalions are more a maneuver element than companies or platoons.

Rank systems are designed to service the command requirements of a military force.

If that were all they were, 19th Century US Army officers would not have complained that navy captains were being promoted directly to two-star rank (nor would they have been, for that matter, since the navy wouldn't have been using four-star rank for its C-in-C). But rank is also an expression of the esteem of society (or King or Congress or Emperor) for the officer. The comparison I gave was to demonstrate why someone in charge of 64 capital ships would feel entitled to more stars and stripes and bells and whistles than someone in charge of four regiments. And pay, of course.

Ultimately, the Army and the Navy have different officer structures because they are built in very different ways.

That has always been the case. That hasn't kept anyone from working out where a visiting army officer messed aboard a ship and who goes in before whom at a formal dinner. Or, in modern times, who gets paid the same salary and pension. (Note that the pay issue is a secondary consideration. The Royal Navy and the British Army had very different pay traditions back in the days, but colonels messed with the captain regardless.)


Hans

 

[Ranger]

You're mixing up command level and rank. There's a strong correlation, sure, but it is not a one-to-one correspondence. Command levels is why the 19th Century USN had three flag ranks. Rank considerations was the reason those three ranks were four-, three-, and two-star admirals rather than three-, two-, and one-star. In other words, command authority is why one officer obeys the orders of another; rank is why one officer has three stars on his shoulders and another has two.

I'm not mixing them up at all. Historically (in general), rank and command authority were congruent; for example the old French rank of Cheif of Battalion, which, by the way, was an O4 positoin. It is mature armed forces that require the creation of intermediate ranks to deal with staff officers without command authority.

The same rank can be stretched over several command levels; but if it is, its equivalence in other services is that of the highest level (example, 18th Century Royal Navy post-captain). Contrariwise, going from one rank to the next can skip a rank level (example, 18th Century USN captain to rear admiral (and Danish 21st Century navy captain to rear admiral)).

Of course they can, and I tried to take that specific issue into account when I did my rank table by pointing out that the senior Captain will be put in charge of small, independent missions of multiple ships. I also put Independent Brigade as the only one star command in the Army side of the table, because in reality there are almost no command spots for one stars unless you are using the British system, in which case and O7 is really a command colonel, rather than the lowest rank of general.

The baseline I begin with is the assumption that a navy captain is the rank-equivalent of an army colonel.

And I accepted that basic assumption when I did my revised rank equivilance table. It starts at O6 on both sides.

And if we use the ship of any size as the maneuver elements, we are at O3 command at the start. So let's not. That way, we won't have to debate why battalions are more a maneuver element than companies or platoons.

Well, if we are going to compare ranks and tactical responsabilities on one side (number of capital ships under command), you have to have something on the other side to compare it to. I chose battalion as a maneuver element because it is the smallest Army unit capable of operating independently on the battlefield and the first level of command with its own staff. As I said up front, when you try to do this type of comparison you hit the issue of establishing equivilency right away, but if you want to use O6 Capital Ship captain equals O6 Regimental/Brigade command, then you need to establish what each commands (1 capital ship = 3 to 5 battalions).

If that were all they were, 19th Century US Army officers would not have complained that navy captains were being promoted directly to two-star rank (nor would they have been, for that matter, since the navy wouldn't have been using four-star rank for its C-in-C). But rank is also an expression of the esteem of society (or King or Congress or Emperor) for the officer. The comparison I gave was to demonstrate why someone in charge of 64 capital ships would feel entitled to more stars and stripes and bells and whistles than someone in charge of four regiments. And pay, of course.

Well, part of the reason the Army was complaining had to do with the fact that the Navy, by promoting O6s at the same rate as the Army, but giving them two stars right away was ensuring date of rank superiority over the Army for every flag officer in the force. But the Army's complaints didn't force changes until Congress started imposing much higher levels of Joint Staff and Commands, which made the Navy's practice problematic across services. BTW, the US Army was forced to do the same in reverse with its promotion practices regarding LTs. The Army used to promote from 2nd to 1st LT at the 18 month mark. The Air Force promoted at 24 months. When Congress started enforcing its Joint mandates on the serveces, the Air Force demanded, and got the Army to slow down promotion times because otherwise Army officers of the same year group would uniformly out rank by time in grade Air Force officers in Joint assigmements. The point of all of that is these types of issues don't become really important until the political system starts forcing significant inter-service integration. I haven't seen much indication that this type of inter-service integration exists in the 3I, so I don't see the issue coming up nearly as much.

That has always been the case. That hasn't kept anyone from working out where a visiting army officer messed aboard a ship and who goes in before whom at a formal dinner. Or, in modern times, who gets paid the same salary and pension. (Note that the pay issue is a secondary consideration. The Royal Navy and the British Army had very different pay traditions back in the days, but colonels messed with the captain regardless.)


Hans

As to the social issues, you haven't taken into account the fact that in Traveller, it is much easier to get a commission and get promoted in the Army than the Navy(5+ and 6+ vs. 10+ and 8+ in basic CG). That is an embedded part of society (MWM has specificly said that when you design character generation you are modeling a society). Everyone knows in the 3I that it is much harder to get to be a Navy 2 star than get to be an Army 4 star. Everyone in the mess knows that the Navy O6 has worked much longer and harder to get his rank than the Army O6 in the 3I. They may mess together, but they are not equal in societies eyes. If anything, the elevated rate of commission and promotion may be an effort by the system to make up for the Army's third rate status (behind the Navy and the Marines) in the 3I.

Once again, just my thoughts.

Edited to clarify some Do's that should have been don'ts (oops).

 

[aramis]

Hans:
1

It was not, in fact, until the mid 20th C (post WWII) that anyone made any big stink about it. And then it was the army general staff, whining about how technical O7s were wearing O8 insignia, and technical O6's were authorized O7 insignia (specifically, COUSNA and COUSNWC).

A timeline of US Flag Ranks
until 1862: Commodore (Title, not rank)
1862: Commodore ★(Rank) and RAdm ★★ (x9)
1864: Commodore ★, RAdm ★★ (x8), VAdm ★★★ (x1)
1866: Commodore ★, RAdm ★★ (x9), VAdm ★★★ (x1), Adm ★★★★ (x1)
1890: Commodore ★, RAdm ★★ (x9), Adm ★★★★ (x1)
1891: Commodore ★, RAdm ★★ (x9)
1899: Commodore ★, RAdm ★★ (x9), Admiral of the Navy ★★★★ (x1)
1900: RAdm ★★ (x9)
1915: RAdm ★★ (x9), VAdm ★★★ (x3), Adm ★★★★ (x3), Admiral of Navy ★★★★ (x1)
1917: RAdm ★★, VAdm ★★★ (x3), Adm ★★★★ (x3), †‡
1944: RAdm ★★‡, VAdm ★★★, Adm ★★★★, FAdm ★★★★★ (x3)
1945: RAdm ★★‡, VAdm ★★★, Adm ★★★★, FAdm ★★★★★(x4*)
1982: Commodore-Admiral ★, RAdm ★★, VAdm ★★★, Adm ★★★★, FAdm ★★★★★ (x0**)
1983: Commodore ★, RAdm ★★, VAdm ★★★, Adm ★★★★, FAdm ★★★★★ (x0**)
1986: RAdmLH ★, RAdm ★★, VAdm ★★★, Adm ★★★★, FAdm ★★★★★ (x0**)

† Commodore as an acting rank was used during WWII experimentally. I can't find specific dates.
‡ at some point in this period or before, the lower half of the RAdm list was made a separate pay rate, but the man in the middle could go up by seniority alone if a RAdm above him retired.
* authorized and appointed; no replacements when they died.
**authorized as a rank, but none appointed serving by then.

Comment 1: Flag Officer in the USN and USCG do retain an up or out policy
Comment 2: Commodore is still used as a title for certain jobs, including Commandants of the USNA and USNWC, and informally for captains commanding a squadron of subs or destroyers.

http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/trivia04.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Clegg_Rowan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dixon_Porter
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html
http://www.dallassubvets.org/WWII_Memories.html


Ranger:
The US and UK navies, as well as the USSR Navy, solved the multiple ranks issue by having staff officers with distinctive uniforms... starting in the 1830's, when warrant officers (Bos'n, Pilot, Carpenter, Surgeon) became commissioned Masters. (They'd always ranked the commissioned ensigns,and been ranked by the Lieutenants, but now were commissioned as officers, not serving on Warrants issued by the Captain/Commodore of the Squadron).

In point of fact, much of the naval rank system was imposed from outside, due to payroll issues and gripes from landlubbers.

 

[rancke]

Please forgive my late entry into the discussion. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your application of the transitive property of mathematics above (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) as the subjects in question are `apples and oranges'. They are not directly comparable for the same reasons the city government of Aarhus and the government of the country of Luxembourg are not directly comparable. One has several more functions than the other.

They're not directly comparable, but they are comparable. And it's the best available evidence. It's not very helpful to say that they may not be the same. That's true enough, but then again, they may be. To dismiss the comparison, I believe you have to show cause. E.g., if someone points out that the USN has, say, 15% more officers than it actually need, that might be a good reason to reduce my numbers by 15%. Or it might be a good reason to say that the Imperial Navy also has 15% more officers than it needs (or 10% or 20%). Because unlike the governments of Aarhus and Luxenbourg, the IN is a ficticious organization, and all I need to do to get it "right" is to hit within the ballpark.

The present day U.S. Navy uses a bifurcated chain of command. There are two seperate chains for each and every operational unit in the Navy. They are named (quite originally) the operational chain of command and the administrative chain of command. Operations (killing people and breaking things) are the bailiwick of the operational chain whereas all support functions (MPT&E, logistics, acquisition, procurement, maintenance, repair, shipbuilding, bases, military medicine, fleet and family services, legal, etc) are all in the administrative chain.

Presumably the Imperial Navy will need its support functions every bit as much as the USN needs its. That's why I estimated the number of shipboard crew positions and then multiplied by four to get three dirtside employees for every shipboard employee (With 1/3rd of the total being civilian employees).

The majority of flag officers are in billlets in the administrative chain.

And so I imagine the majority of flag officers in an IN fleet would be.

Given the force structure presented in your first post, I think a reasonable officer billet structure for an operational fleet as described above would be: [snip]

Thanks, that's useful. But I never in the first place imagined that those ~120 flag officers I calculated would all be on the operational side.

Note 1: As Ranger identified, CO positions are based on the role of the force commanded and number of personnel under command. If memory serves, Sloan class Fleet Escorts have roughly 45 crew. In most NATO navies, that would mean an O3 CO. In the U.S. Navy (being top-heavy and risk averse) that would be an O4 CO.

Sloans have a crew of 40. I wonder if that's actually sound; a Kinunir, one quarter the size of a Sloan, has a crew of 45 (plus marines).

Incidentally, the Kinunirs are supposedly captained by a full captain (O6). It also has two commanders, two lt. commanders, four lieutenants, and two ensigns. Plus four marine officers (a captain and three lieutenants), 10 NCOs and 26 privates.

(No, I don't want to accept that either, but that's what the canon says).

Battleships have historically been O6 COs in all navies. Therefore, from officer development, force structure, career milestone, and fleet roles, a cruiser makes sense as an O5 command. It is not uncommon for ships with 350+ crewmembers in NATO and US navies to be commanded by O5s (Spruance class, Molders class, Ticonderoga - baseline 1, etc).

It's a possibility, and a very plausible one. Back in the 18th Century, junior post-captains commanded sixth rates, which had crews of around 200 men, which is what a light cruiser seems to have. But, I know, things have changed since then. However, that just changes the proportion of O6s to O5s, not the sum total of ships or the total number of crew. So I don't see why it would affect the number of flag officers. Especially since most of them would be on the administrative side .

IMHO, the first O9 in the chain of command would be the geographic theater commander, for example, COMJEWELLFLT (Comander Jewell Fleets - having operational command of all fleets in the Jewell theater of war).

Would that be the commander of the regular fleet stationed in the Jewell subsector? Because that's an organization that I estimate to run to 300,000 men, and I still think that if the USN needs 11 O10s to run an organization of 500,000 men, then even if it is a bit over-officered, you're still going to need more than a single O9 to run an organization with 300,000 men.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Of course they can, and I tried to take that specific issue into account when I did my rank table by pointing out that the senior Captain will be put in charge of small, independent missions of multiple ships. I also put Independent Brigade as the only one star command in the Army side of the table, because in reality there are almost no command spots for one stars unless you are using the British system, in which case and O7 is really a command colonel, rather than the lowest rank of general.

We're using the Imperial system. Whatever that may be. I'm almost certain that somewhere I've seen brigades defined as two regiments, a division as two brigades, an army corps as two divisions, and and army as two army corps. But as I can't track down the reference, I may be mistaken. It's certainly not the way army structures are described in Ground Forces, but GF seems to ignore the canonical existence of regiments entirely in favor of brigades. In fact, as described the 4518th is a brigade, not a regiment.

I chose battalion as a maneuver element because it is the smallest Army unit capable of operating independently on the battlefield and the first level of command with its own staff.

I don't accept the relevance of maneuver elements to the issue.

As I said up front, when you try to do this type of comparison you hit the issue of establishing equivilency right away, but if you want to use O6 Capital Ship captain equals O6 Regimental/Brigade command, then you need to establish what each commands (1 capital ship = 3 to 5 battalions).

No, all I need is to establish that Navy captains are equivalent to Army colonels.

The point of all of that is these types of issues don't become really important until the political system starts forcing significant inter-service integration. I haven't seen much indication that this type of inter-service integration exists in the 3I, so I don't see the issue coming up nearly as much.

You have a table that claims that this navy rank is equivalent to this army rank. How is that not a clear indication of the existence of inter-service issues? It may be a question of pay (as with modern US practice), it may be an issue of inter-service cooperation (as with NATO practices), it may be a question of who takes the legate's wife in to dinner (as in earlier centuries). But it's there.

As to the social issues, you haven't taken into account the fact that in Traveller, it is much easier to get a commission and get promoted in the Army than the Navy(5+ and 6+ vs. 10+ and 8+ in basic CG). That is an embedded part of society (MWM has specificly said that when you design character generation you are modeling a society).

First time I've heard that. I have heard plenty of remarks about how silly the results are you get when you take the Character Generation rules too literally. Not that I don't think it's posssible to read some general trends, but ultimately the CGen rules is about generating player characters, and that skews the results. E.g. I refuse to believe that 3% of the population of the Imperium are Imperial barons (or close family) and that another 6% are Imperial knights. Forgetting that is what made the author of The Kinunir put two barons and three knights into an 80 man ship crew, which, IMO, is patently ridiculous. (OK, not "couldn't possibly happen" ridiculous, but "either an incredible coincidence or there's got to be some very complicated explanation" ridiculous).

Everyone knows in the 3I that it is much harder to get to be a Navy 2 star than get to be an Army 4 star.

All the more reason that the navy Fleet admiral should be at least the equal of the army general, arguably more.

Everyone in the mess knows that the Navy O6 has worked much longer and harder to get his rank than the Army O6 in the 3I. They may mess together, but they are not equal in society's eyes. If anything, the elevated rate of commission and promotion may be an effort by the system to make up for the Army's third rate status (behind the Navy and the Marines) in the 3I.

The whole point of certain army ranks messing with certain navy ranks (back in Napoleonic days, when such distinctions were more important) is that in society's eyes, they WERE equals.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Wil, does this infodump contradict what I was saying in any way? I can't spot anything that does.


Hans

 

[Ranger]

We're using the Imperial system. Whatever that may be. I'm almost certain that somewhere I've seen brigades defined as two regiments, a division as two brigades, an army corps as two divisions, and and army as two army corps. But as I can't track down the reference, I may be mistaken. It's certainly not the way army structures are described in Ground Forces, but GF seems to ignore the canonical existence of regiments entirely in favor of brigades. In fact, as described the 4518th is a brigade, not a regiment.

Based on Book 4, the only guidence for units larger than Battalion is:

"Players thus have a great deal of flexability above battalion level, but in forming such units, and even in determining the size of smaller units, referees should bear in mind the principle of span of control. As a general rule, a unit should consist of no more than three to five sub-units."

Not suprisingly (given the background of the GDW designers) that's essentially the same as US Army doctrine.

The system you're describing is essentially the French Army system during the Napoleonic Wars (though Napoleon did try to establish a system where each brigade would have 5 battalions, and each regiment would have 6 battalions, 5 field and 1 depot, so that each regiment would be able to field all five battalions of a single brigade).

A regiment is a branch "pure" unit. A brigade is a combined arms unit. That's probably why the 4518th is called a brigade in GT, because it is organized as a combined arms unit.

I don't accept the relevance of maneuver elements to the issue.


No, all I need is to establish that Navy captains are equivalent to Army colonels.

Well, not if your argument on why canon is broken is because a Numbered Fleet commander has so much more responsibility than an Army division commander.

I'll take one more stab at the table to make my point.

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

Cruser (O5).............................................................Battalion (O5)
Battleship ((O6))......................................................Regiment-Brigade (3-5 MEs (O6))
Division (2 ships (Senior Captain Present)).....................No equivalent
Half-squadron (4 ships (Senior Captain Present)).............No equivalent
Squadron (4-9 ships (Commodore (O7)))……...................Independent Brigade (3-5 MEs (O7))
Task Force (8-27 ships (Sr. Commodore Present (O7)))…..Division (9-25 MEs (O8))
Numbered fleet (64-270 ships (Fleet Admiral (O8)))..........Army Corps (18-75 MEs (O9))
Named fleet (128-3500+ ships (Sector Admiral (O9))).......Army (36-375 MEs) (O10)
Entire Navy (~22 named fleets (Grand admiral (O10))......................No equivalent

You have a table that claims that this navy rank is equivalent to this army rank. How is that not a clear indication of the existence of inter-service issues? It may be a question of pay (as with modern US practice), it may be an issue of inter-service cooperation (as with NATO practices), it may be a question of who takes the legate's wife in to dinner (as in earlier centuries). But it's there.

But in the 3I, there doesn't seem to be much inter-service interaction. The Army and the Navy operation in to completely different spheres. The Army is predominantly a local force designed to fight in its present location. The Navy is an Imperial force, with significant mobility and wide ranging responsibilities. If the Navy needs troops, it turns to the Imperial Marines first, not the Army. What Imperial Army that does exist is probalby made up of independent brigades that can be moved without too much trouble to add firepower to a local army, like the 4518th (which actually isn't even an Imperial Army unit, but household troops for the Duke).

First time I've heard that. I have heard plenty of remarks about how silly the results are you get when you take the Character Generation rules too literally. Not that I don't think it's posssible to read some general trends, but ultimately the CGen rules is about generating player characters, and that skews the results. E.g. I refuse to believe that 3% of the population of the Imperium are Imperial barons (or close family) and that another 6% are Imperial knights. Forgetting that is what made the author of The Kinunir put two barons and three knights into an 80 man ship crew, which, IMO, is patently ridiculous. (OK, not "couldn't possibly happen" ridiculous, but "either an incredible coincidence or there's got to be some very complicated explanation" ridiculous).

Well, I've always taken CG to be a system of creating characters that were probable to be members of that portion of Imperial society who are Travellers (people who actually leave their own home planet at some point). I'd say that's between .5 and 5% of the total Imperial populatio (but I've never scoped it out beyond that). Even given that, and assuming that most enlisted soldiers won't leave their home planet, the commission and promotion rates are still much higher for the Army than the Navy in Basic CG. That's obviously reflective of something in Imperial society. You can't just hand wave off that descrepency between the two services. To get a commission in the Army is 5+ (4+ if you just have average End). To get a commission in the Navy is 10+ (9+ with a Soc of 9 or higher).

All the more reason that the navy Fleet admiral should be at least the equal of the army general, arguably more.

Why? The local Army commander is probably a much more important person to the local government than the local Numbered Fleet commander. The local political esbalishment sees the local Army commander as both a key element of the government's ability to stay in power and potnetially a key source of economic and personal patronage though defense contracts and personel assignments. The Numbered Fleet commander is an Imperial officer responsible to the higher levels of the Imperial Navy and the local nobility. The local planetary government has much less invested in the fleet and much less to gain from it (except in time of war or a major).

The whole point of certain army ranks messing with certain navy ranks (back in Napoleonic days, when such distinctions were more important) is that in society's eyes, they WERE equals.


Hans

But that just points out one of the key problems with the argument you are making. You're making huge jumps between historical periods and social formations change significantly between them. Just because it was that way at one time, doesn't mean it has to be that way in the 3I. Regiments (as understood at the time of the Napoleonic Wars) don't exist in the 3I. In fact, by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, regiments had been reduced to mainly administrative and training functionts, with tactical command being carried out by brigade commanders (who probably technically out ranked capital ship captains of their day, since the brigade commanders outrank the regimental commanders who were supplying the troops to the brigade).

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Speaking for the three percent.

I have been mostly lurking this, but as one of the three percent of the Empire's Barons, I feel obligated to speak for us. Also as member of His Imperial Majesty's Navy, I also feel a need to speak on this matter.

What is so odd about having two Barons and three Knights aboard HMS Kinunir?

We of the lower Nobility are spread over a vast and wide Empire of the Stars composed of over 15,000 worlds. Three percent is a small fraction of the untold trillions of Citizens, Subjects and other sophonts which we, the Imperial Nobility serve by the Grace of HIM.

Of course some us are drawn to the Imperial Forces. Some from a sense of Duty and Honor, some because it is required for some reason, some for a love of the Stars themselves. Many are the reasons, as there those of us Barons who seek to Serve HIM in the Navy. Of course we have the service of those below us in the Imperial Peerage, and those include Baronets and of course Knights.

It is quite possible that one or more, possibly all of the Knights, might have been in the Service of the Barons aboard, who in turn by virtue of Naval traditions, rights, responsibilities, and rank be subordinate to the Captain. Aboard a Cruiser of the Imperial Navy that does not seem much, two Barons and three Knights.

Just my thoughts,
Magnus.

 

[OIT]

Presumably the Imperial Navy will need its support functions every bit as much as the USN needs its. That's why I estimated the number of shipboard crew positions and then multiplied by four to get three dirtside employees for every shipboard employee (With 1/3rd of the total being civilian employees).

Of course the IN needs as much, or arguably, more support than the USN, and I more or less agree with your numbers, but the point is those support personnel are not part of the fleet.

Thanks, that's useful. But I never in the first place imagined that those ~120 flag officers I calculated would all be on the operational side.

Very well. If we agree on the number of flags assigned to an average fleet, then the question on the table is how many flags are required to maintain said fleet in being, which is a much larger question. Rephrased, the question is how many flags are in a given theater.

Sloans have a crew of 40. I wonder if that's actually sound; a Kinunir, one quarter the size of a Sloan, has a crew of 45 (plus marines).

Incidentally, the Kinunirs are supposedly captained by a full captain (O6). It also has two commanders, two lt. commanders, four lieutenants, and two ensigns. Plus four marine officers (a captain and three lieutenants), 10 NCOs and 26 privates.

(No, I don't want to accept that either, but that's what the canon says).

Then don't accept the canon. Discard that instance if you like or divine an explanation for the staggering seniority of Kinunir wardrooms (something attuned to the Kinunirs' covert/spec ops mission - black globe, large marine contingent, worthlessness as a battle platform, etc).

It's a possibility, and a very plausible one. Back in the 18th Century, junior post-captains commanded sixth rates, which had crews of around 200 men, which is what a light cruiser seems to have. But, I know, things have changed since then. However, that just changes the proportion of O6s to O5s, not the sum total of ships or the total number of crew. So I don't see why it would affect the number of flag officers. Especially since most of them would be on the administrative side .

I'm sorry, I thought the comparative model was early 21st century USN. If you choose to model your IN on 18th century RN, that is, of course, your perogative. The closest thing to a sixth rate in the USN now is USS CONSTITUTION, a fifth rate in her day, which is commanded by an O4 at present.

Also, I think you'll find making cruiser O5 commands will change the number of flags as CRURON commodores (position) would be O6s rather than O7s.

Would that be the commander of the regular fleet stationed in the Jewell subsector?

COMJEWELLFLT would be the commander of the fleets (plural) in the Jewell theater. He or she may have one fleet assigned, or three or twelve, at any given time, depending on the situation. For example, COMPACFLT (Commander Pacific Fleet) in the USN commands the 3rd and 7th fleets at the moment.

B

Because that's an organization that I estimate to run to 300,000 men, and I still think that if the USN needs 11 O10s to run an organization of 500,000 men, then even if it is a bit over-officered, you're still going to need more than a single O9 to run an organization with 300,000 men.

Perhaps. Frederic Barbarossa's army of 300,000 in the crusades was commanded by a single general, Frederic himself. Perhaps that explains why it dissolved upon his death. Of course that reference is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Seriously, however, if you are looking to use the USN model for total number of flags in a given organizational size, regardless of function (operational and administrative), it may be worthwhile to examine:

- Whether the overbearing US military's emphasis on staffs on a single TL-7.5ish world has merit in the Traveller universe.
- Whether the Imperium has as many joint staffs as the US. Do Colonial Affairs replace the current US joint emphasis? Maybe they do. For example, the IN is unlikely to have multiple flags assigned to an Imperial Ballistic Missile Defense Agency, but maybe they have more flags assigned to Colonial Affairs than the USN allots for Reserve Affairs.
- Whether the organizational culture is top-heavy or light and whether it is bloated or lean.

... and so forth.

Incidentally, regarding the single O9 I proposed for COMJEWELLFLT, please remember I was proposing that as an operational command, not an organization-wide structure. When including the admin chain of command, I agree that more flags are required to support the continued existence of a given fleet. I don't think it will be as many as the current USN has on payroll for various reasons, but that's something for further discussion.

Hope this helps,
OIT

 

[rancke]

What is so odd about having two Barons and three Knights aboard HMS Kinunir?

We of the lower Nobility are spread over a vast and wide Empire of the Stars composed of over 15,000 worlds. Three percent is a small fraction of the untold trillions of Citizens, Subjects and other sophonts which we, the Imperial Nobility serve by the Grace of HIM.

You're joking, right? You can't seriously mean that you think 3% of the population would be Imperial nobles? That would be 300 billion Imperial knights and 150 billion members of the Moot. An Imperial baron would have less power and prestige than a city alderman.


Hans

 

[Ranger]

Ok, I've gone back through the 5th Frontier War counter mix, and I think that is where the idea of 2 regiments to a brigade, 2 brigades to a division comes from. So, I'll redo my version of the chart based on FFW (even though it doesn't match Book 4's guidence). Given that FFW masures ground unit strngth in battalions that still seems to be a good way to measure Army ranks. Also, given the counter mix, I'll accept the existance of large Imperial Army units (though, to be honest, I peronally don't think that makes much sense, but so be it).

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

Cruser (O5).............................................. ...............Battalion (O5)
Battleship (O6)............................................ ............Regiment (5 MEs (O6))
Squadron (4-9 ships (Commodore (O7)))……...................Independent Brigade (10 MEs (O7))
No equivalent........................................................….Division (20 MEs (O8))
Numbered fleet (16-270 ships (Fleet Admiral (O8)))..........Army Corps (50-100 MEs (O9))
Named fleet (128-3500+ ships (Sector Admiral (O9))).......Field Army (500 MEs) (O10)
Entire Navy (~22 named fleets (Grand admiral (O10))........No equivalent

If we take a cruser as the first Navy command level that is capable of operating independently for long periods of time, then it equates to an Army battalion. If you use FFW as a guide, then Corps maps pretty well with Numbered Fleet command. Division maps well with Task Force command. Field Army even maps pretty well with smaller Named fleets.

As for the battle area at the start of the war, there is 1 Imperial Army Corps, 4 Brigades, and 4 Regiments in the entire border region, compared with 4 Imperial Navy Numbered Fleets and 8 total Imperial combat squadrons (2 Batrons, 6 Crurons) in a four subsecor border region. So your average Imperial Numbered Fleet in the Border region had a total strenght of 16 ships at the begning of the war. Now, that jumps up significantly, 1 Named fleet with 7 numbered fleets comprising 58 Imperial squadrons, or an average of just over 64 ships per squadron. Also, that means you are getting just over 450 Imperial combat vessels into the combat theater, compared to over 4,500 army battalions pouring into the zone.

Therefore, in peacetime, a numbered fleet commander in the border region has about the same level of responsibilty in ships as an Independant Brigade commander has in battalions. So, that's a rough O8 to O8 equiviance in peacetime. In wartime, you have an O9 commanding just over 500 Imperial combat ships and another roughly 350 colonial combat ships in the entire theatre, compared to roughly 4,500 Imperial Army battalions and several hundred more colonial battalions.

I still don't see the huge descrepency in ranks that needs to be addressed.

 

[rancke]

Of course the IN needs as much, or arguably, more support than the USN, and I more or less agree with your numbers, but the point is those support personnel are not part of the fleet.

They're not? What are they part of, then?

Very well. If we agree on the number of flags assigned to an average fleet, then the question on the table is how many flags are required to maintain said fleet in being, which is a much larger question. Rephrased, the question is how many flags are in a given theater.

If said theater is what is covered by one fleet, yes. (And that would be a subsector).

I'm sorry, I thought the comparative model was early 21st century USN.

I thought I'd explained that I used the USN primarily as a source of a guesstimate for the number of officers you need to run a military organization roughly analogous to a wet navy navy with about 300,000 employees. Nothing more. I don't, for example, think a star navy squadron is a direct equivalent of a 21st Century aircraft carrier group.

If you choose to model your IN on 18th century RN, that is, of course, your perogative. The closest thing to a sixth rate in the USN now is USS CONSTITUTION, a fifth rate in her day, which is commanded by an O4 at present.

So if we were to decide that cruisers with crews of 200 are commanders' commands, where would you put the dividing line between ships captained by commanders and ships captained by captains, in terms of crew size?

COMJEWELLFLT would be the commander of the fleets (plural) in the Jewell theater. He or she may have one fleet assigned, or three or twelve, at any given time, depending on the situation. For example, COMPACFLT (Commander Pacific Fleet) in the USN commands the 3rd and 7th fleets at the moment.

That does not seem to be the way the Imperial Navy does things. If there are two or more fleets gathered together, the senior admiral gives the orders. In that respect, the IN is more 18th Century than 21st Century.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Ok, I've gone back through the 5th Frontier War counter mix, and I think that is where the idea of 2 regiments to a brigade, 2 brigades to a division comes from.

Yes, you're right. More specifically, it's the article in JTAS#10 p. 24-26 that describes the algorithms used to determine the counters in FFW. A combat factor corresponds to a battalion, and a regiment has 5 combat factors, a brigade has 10, and a division has 20. But after that my memory played me false. A corps is 50-100 combat factors and an army is 5000.

So, I'll redo my version of the chart based on FFW (even though it doesn't match Book 4's guidence).

Book 4 mainly describes mercenary formations, which may not be organized quite the same ways. Also, not all armies will be organized the same way. There's mention of a 3 battalion regiment in the explanatory text of the aforementioned article. Matbe the Imperial Army is organized by the brigade instead of by the regiment.

Given that FFW masures ground unit strength in battalions that still seems to be a good way to measure Army ranks.

Given that brigades are commanded by brigadiers, it seems to me that measuring by the brigade makes far better sense.

I still don't think that measuring by maneuver element makes sense, and even if it did, there's no way a battalion would count as one. According to GT:Ground forces, the smallest unit the Imperium deploys is a brigade. Even if you refuse to accept that as evidence, I bet Doug Berry got that from present-day usage.

Anyway, the proper comparison is the number of men (and officers) under the flag officer. The crew of a Tigress (4054) is comparable to a brigade. The commander of a squadron of Tigresses has the equivalent of EIGHT brigades under him. That's a fairly good match for an entire corps.

As for the battle area at the start of the war, there is 1 Imperial Army Corps, 4 Brigades, and 4 Regiments in the entire border region, compared with 4 Imperial Navy Numbered Fleets and 8 total Imperial combat squadrons (2 Batrons, 6 Crurons) in a four subsecor border region. So your average Imperial Numbered Fleet in the Border region had a total strenght of 16 ships at the begning of the war.

The forces shown in FFW are flawed and have been retconned. With good cause. Firstly, they're based on populations with an effective population multiplier of 1, which makes then too low by a factor between 1 and 9, depending on which world. For the Imperial forces it could mean a factor 5, but is probably lower than that (I suspect, but don't know for sure, that pop multipliers of pop 10 worlds are skewed towards the low end). Secondly, a navy as small as FFW implies would cost less than 1% of the Imperium's gross product to maintain, whereas the average is said to be 3%.

So RbS put the number of combat squadrons in a fleet at 8-10. That would give a fleet 2 BatRons and 6 CruRons in peacetime, a factor 4 more than FFW has it. Which fits quite nicely with the increase accounting for population multipliers would cause.


Hans

 

[Ranger]

Given that brigades are commanded by brigadiers, it seems to me that measuring by the brigade makes far better sense.

I still don't think that measuring by maneuver element makes sense, and even if it did, there's no way a battalion would count as one. According to GT:Ground forces, the smallest unit the Imperium deploys is a brigade. Even if you refuse to accept that as evidence, I bet Doug Berry got that from present-day usage.

Actually, I do agree with the idea of the Brigade being the basic deployment force, but that's not the same as a maneuver element. A brigade in this sense is more analogous to a Navy squadron, not a single capital ship, because once deployed, the brigade can break off individual battalions to do seperate missions, in the same way a navy squadron can break off individual capital ships to do seperate missions. So, given the capabilities there is an equivilance between a Brigade and a Squadron. And, in the comparison table I did that holds. They are both O7 commands in the Army and the Navy in that breakdown

Anyway, the proper comparison is the number of men (and officers) under the flag officer. The crew of a Tigress (4054) is comparable to a brigade. The commander of a squadron of Tigresses has the equivalent of EIGHT brigades under him. That's a fairly good match for an entire corps.

Not at all. A Tigress is still a single ship command, and a squadron of Tigresses is still a Squadron command. I pointed out up thread how faulty it is to get caught up in this type of comparion. I'll make another comparison here. A US Army Tank Heavy Task Force has roughly 600 soldiers. A US Army Airborne Infantry Task Force has roughly 1,200 soldiers. They are both commanded by O5s. Should the larger one be an O6 command simply because it has twice as many soldiers?

In the US Navy today, a CVN with roughly 5,000 personel is still an O6 command.

The forces shown in FFW are flawed and have been retconned. With good cause. Firstly, they're based on populations with an effective population multiplier of 1, which makes then too low by a factor between 1 and 9, depending on which world. For the Imperial forces it could mean a factor 5, but is probably lower than that (I suspect, but don't know for sure, that pop multipliers of pop 10 worlds are skewed towards the low end). Secondly, a navy as small as FFW implies would cost less than 1% of the Imperium's gross product to maintain, whereas the average is said to be 3%.

So RbS put the number of combat squadrons in a fleet at 8-10. That would give a fleet 2 BatRons and 6 CruRons in peacetime, a factor 4 more than FFW has it. Which fits quite nicely with the increase accounting for population multipliers would cause.


Hans

But that doesn't solve the ratio of Army to Navy problem. If you are going to boost up the Navy by a factor of 4 or 5, you have to do the same for the Army forces as well, so the ratio remains the same. It is still roughly 6 battalions to each capital ship in the combat theater. Which helps explain why there are so many more Army officers than Navy officers in the Imperium.

 

[aramis]

For comparison: A Civil War era company was 4 to 5 platoons of 60 to 70 men, plus 2 LT's, 1 first Sergeant, 4 Platoon Sergeants, and half a dozen specialists. It was commanded by a (ground) Captain (o3). anywhere from 250 to 350 men (usually about 250 fielded.) A Regiment was 16 companies fielded, 2000-4000 men (usually around 2500), plus regimental training assets, commanded by an O6.

Book 4 specifies 2-3 fireteams per squad (8-12m), 3-4 squads per platoon (24-48m), and "several" platoons (typically 3-4, striker says 2-5, maybe 150-200, from 50-270 by striker) plus a squad of staff (add another 12). And Battalions of "several" companies (2-5 per striker, 100-1350 men, nominally 400 men), and we know from MT RebSB that a battalion combat strength of 1-2, and a regiment of 3-7... we can see 3 is the nominal number of battalions... so about 1200-2000 men. Commanded by a O6.

Regiments have shrunk over time, whilst ship crews have grown. But a 2000man crew on a Sailing Ship of the 1st rate was a captain's (O6) command, usually with an admiral in immediate oversight, as usually it was the flagship. Now, a Battleship with a crew of 6000 is commanded by an O6, usually with the Batttlegroup Commander O7 aboard.

Meanwhile, the Battleships of the 3I are up to 5,000 people⁽¹⁾... same as a USN Battleship was... on a ship more than 10x the overall volume.


So direct comparisons are invalid between army and navy... the relationship has changed over time.


1 Sup 9, Fighting Ships. MT has larger still.

 

[Hal]

Quick question - as I don't have the time to pull up my FFW material (gotta get ready for work and all that)

Hans points out that the methodology for determining forces in the FFW is flawed on the grounds that it never took into account a population modifier value higher than 1.

Here is my suggestion:

Interpolate what those values should have been on the grounds that the actual values in FFW were based upon not only a population modifier of 1, but also upon the world's population digit being a function of 1 x population value^10th.

The problem here is that initially, the world population values were already stated to be between two values to begin with. A world with a pop value of say, 5, was expected to be between (10^5) and (10^6)-1. So my question is - why is it that people are saying that the population modifier is NOT accounted for, when in reality, it was initially included in the original values to start with. The ONLY difference is, that no one bothered to include the pop modifier until someone said "hey, I know it is supposed to be a range between 10^pop and 10^pop minus one person - but I want to know HOW many there are in the most significant number, is it 1,2,3... 9?"

In all? If you have a pop value of 8 and it gives one result, and you have a pop 9 world and it gives another result, then a pop 8 world with a pop modifier of 5, should be midway between the stated result for a pop 8 world, and a pop 9 world right?

Question is - how does that "Scale" to begin with? Is it a linear scale, or is it a scale that curves?

 

[rancke]

So my question is - why is it that people are saying that the population modifier is NOT accounted for, when in reality, it was initially included in the original values to start with. The ONLY difference is, that no one bothered to include the pop modifier until someone said "hey, I know it is supposed to be a range between 10^pop and 10^pop minus one person - but I want to know HOW many there are in the most significant number, is it 1,2,3... 9?"

In all? If you have a pop value of 8 and it gives one result, and you have a pop 9 world and it gives another result, then a pop 8 world with a pop modifier of 5, should be midway between the stated result for a pop 8 world, and a pop 9 world right?

When you calculate the gross product of the Imperium based on pop multipliers of 1 and on average pop multipliers of 5 and see how many ships you can maintain on 3% of that, you get different results. To the point where it looks like the two squadrons per fleet of FFW seem to correspond fairly well with pop multipliers of 1 and the 8-10 squadrons per fleet of RgS seem to correspond fairly well with average pop multipliers of 5.


Hans