TL;DR MISSION = JOB
Ship missions seem something like character careers, kind of. They're a label that tells us the ship's current purpose. Unlike careers, the design process is not railroaded by that mission, beyond the architect's vision -- although people who get to see the design can do a kind of subjective "design evaluation" and decide if the choices made seem reasonable.
Also unlike the careers, there's nothing that maps ship missions to "skills"... there are design and performance suggestions and precedents. However, the metaphor doesn't extend well to the ship's components or crew. The relationship would be a tortuous one and, I think, unproductive.
But the career metaphor is better. Actually the ship's mission code is more like a JOB code than a career code: it's about what the ship is currently doing. Note that the Lightnings, Kinuniirin, and Leviathans re-sold to various organizations were re-coded.
Thus "mission" can change. It is not an intrinsic characteristic of a ship, though it typically seems to be long-lived.
TL;DR MODIFIERS are an OPEN CLASS
The secondary table of "Mission Modifiers" is an unsorted pile of descriptors. The modifiers are often universal, but many are divisible into general service branches (military, commercial, private).
I suggest that this modifiers table is an open class, because there are many "edge case" starship designs over the decades which may not fit into the provided codes. Since creating codes for every possible unique ship mission is likely a fool's errand, it's best to keep the modifiers open and let architects improvise when they need to.
TL;DR Battle-Class Mission Codes
I noticed the tendency for BCS codes in Agent of the Imperium to not seem to follow the T5 Mission Codes page. This is a ridiculous thing, so I sought to understand what's going on. The first idea I had, was that these BCS codes are modifiers only -- since the primary mission of capital ships in AOTI is almost always a type of Cruiser (Battle-Battle, Battle-Strike...).
Marc later clarified by saying that the codes used on AOTI are colloquial. Informal conversation may not use the rules. That's also useful advice for us pedantic players (and yes, this thread is pedantic).
Ship missions seem something like character careers, kind of. They're a label that tells us the ship's current purpose. Unlike careers, the design process is not railroaded by that mission, beyond the architect's vision -- although people who get to see the design can do a kind of subjective "design evaluation" and decide if the choices made seem reasonable.
Also unlike the careers, there's nothing that maps ship missions to "skills"... there are design and performance suggestions and precedents. However, the metaphor doesn't extend well to the ship's components or crew. The relationship would be a tortuous one and, I think, unproductive.
But the career metaphor is better. Actually the ship's mission code is more like a JOB code than a career code: it's about what the ship is currently doing. Note that the Lightnings, Kinuniirin, and Leviathans re-sold to various organizations were re-coded.
Thus "mission" can change. It is not an intrinsic characteristic of a ship, though it typically seems to be long-lived.
TL;DR MODIFIERS are an OPEN CLASS
The secondary table of "Mission Modifiers" is an unsorted pile of descriptors. The modifiers are often universal, but many are divisible into general service branches (military, commercial, private).
I suggest that this modifiers table is an open class, because there are many "edge case" starship designs over the decades which may not fit into the provided codes. Since creating codes for every possible unique ship mission is likely a fool's errand, it's best to keep the modifiers open and let architects improvise when they need to.
TL;DR Battle-Class Mission Codes
I noticed the tendency for BCS codes in Agent of the Imperium to not seem to follow the T5 Mission Codes page. This is a ridiculous thing, so I sought to understand what's going on. The first idea I had, was that these BCS codes are modifiers only -- since the primary mission of capital ships in AOTI is almost always a type of Cruiser (Battle-Battle, Battle-Strike...).
Marc later clarified by saying that the codes used on AOTI are colloquial. Informal conversation may not use the rules. That's also useful advice for us pedantic players (and yes, this thread is pedantic).
