[Pedantic] Ship Codes in Agent of the Imperium

[robject]

TL;DR. When we talk about ship mission codes, we need to define if we're speaking about an official system, or informal terms.

AOTI is informal.

---

Agent of the Imperium has capital ship codes, as well as a glossary explaining how to read the codes.

But this list is not "authoritative", although it is useful for discussions.

I concluded this because of an email from Marc Miller on March 19, 2022:

The (U.S.) Navy has an extensive classification system for vessels (and aircraft). But the admirals and the public just say

Battleship
Carrier
Cruiser
Destroyer

Often while not being clear on what the mission or role is.

I do that with Battle, Siege, and Cruiser.

(Marc Miller, 2022 March 19)

My view of the ship codes in AOTI is that they seem to be more like mission modifiers, rather than primary mission codes. Marc's claim is that they're not even at the level of mission modifiers -- they're informal.


That doesn't mean they're not useful. It just means that there's a difference in speaking about these ships, and how they're officially classified.

When I talk about mission codes, I think "pedantically" -- I think what's the official classification? -- because surely that would be more systematic. But an informal term can be useful. For instance, in the case of capital ships.

 

[whulorigan]

TL;DR. When we talk about ship mission codes, we need to define if we're speaking about an official system, or informal terms.

AOTI is informal.

---

Agent of the Imperium has capital ship codes, as well as a glossary explaining how to read the codes.

But this list is not "authoritative", although it is useful for discussions.

I concluded this because of an email from Marc Miller on March 19, 2022:


My view of the ship codes in AOTI is that they seem to be more like mission modifiers, rather than primary mission codes. Marc's claim is that they're not even at the level of mission modifiers -- they're informal.

That doesn't mean they're not useful. It just means that there's a difference in speaking about these ships, and how they're officially classified.

When I talk about mission codes, I think "pedantically" -- I think what's the official classification? -- because surely that would be more systematic. But an informal term can be useful. For instance, in the case of capital ships.

Sure, which means that the proper naval terms for such ships may be completely different and more descriptive.

For example, "Capital Warship" or "Primary" or "Space Dominance Vessel" (i.e. "Main fighting units at the head of the battle operation), with the appropriate modifying descriptors, may be more significant mission descriptors in Naval terminology than the colloquial terms "Battleship" or "Battlecruiser" or "Dreadnought".

"Cruiser" may simply be a more generic term for any smaller ship that supports the Primary Warships in direct combat operations, or which operate independently in situations other than a pitched battle (i.e. the "workhorses" of a fleet for general naval operations, much as the historical Cruisers or Frigates were) which generally have long-range endurance and reasonable deployment speed for independent operations. (Note how the term "cruiser" has been employed in the modern world for everything from a Naval Vessel to a Police Interceptor Groundcar, to a "Cabin Cruiser" or any other vehicle with reasonable speed and endurance).

Everything else in naval operations is of "Auxiliary" (i.e. "Minor") status in general (which can cover a wide range of mission and vessel types), as they do not primarily participate in direct battle fleet operations (i.e. Supply Tenders/Dromedaries, Tankers, Fleet Couriers, Picket Ships, Recon Vessels, Comcaster Detection/Fire-direction Vessels, Small Escorts and Point-Defense Ships for such vessels, Gunboats, etc.). Many of the smaller of these would fall under ACS categorizations on their own.


Looking at it this way avoids some of the baggage of thinking of Space Battles in terms of First & Second World War Fleet operations and tactics (or even modern Naval tactics), as Space Operations by their nature are going to be tactically very different due to the nature of the medium in which those battles take place.

 

[kilemall]

The very word destroyer used to mean torpedo boat destroyer and implied an escorting function. Then the submarine became the primary asymmetric non-gun delivery system and much of the destroyer’s weapons fit and function reoriented to that, with a heaping dose of AA screening and a bit of torpedoing and countering enemy destroyers.

Now the airplane and missile are the primary non-gun systems, so destroyers are structured that way.

In all that the primary mission of capable escort remains, even if the original meaning is lost.

Speaking of lost meaning, yacht used to mean a particular sailing ship design used to hunt pirates. So the various naval terms we use are likely to radically change over millennia.