Proposed Ship mission codes

[Spinward Flow]

A versus M versus R: Why Bother?

The fact that the Merchant is not a Trader is a near-universal fact.

You're making a distinction without a useful difference.

You're trying to say that passenger liners aren't merchants or traders (it's not like they "trade" passengers) ... while sidestepping the fact that most passenger liners are commercial ventures.

Freight vs Cargo ... is a difference in semantics at the naval architect's office. The exact same ship class/design can do BOTH of those things, because at the ship design level it's just cargo capacity.

Scheduled route vs unscheduled tramp ... again, at the naval architect's office the difference is one of semantics. The exact same ship class/design can do BOTH of those things, because at the ship design level the question of HOW the ship operates (scheduled vs unscheduled) is up to the owner/crew. It's not a difference that modifies the coding of the ship.

And that's before we even get into the fact that ships (commercial types particularly) can be reconfigured/retrofitted to change the "mix" of their passenger and cargo capacity.



From my perspective, ships that are primarily operated for (legitimate) commercial profit all fall into the same primary code ... MERCHANT ... and what "kind" of merchant they are then a matter of the qualifier code.

KISS.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I would guess (if we are using historical definitions as a guide), that a Cruiser has good armament and decent armor, while still being able to independently cruise long-range with good speed.

A Frigate would be smaller than a Cruiser, and "up-gunned" relative to its smaller size-category (maybe approaching cruiser-level armament) while perhaps sacrificing some armor to maintain good speed and agility.

Keep the designations a bit more open, to fit Traveller rather than WWI floating ships.

Any warships need armour, and lots of it.

Something like:
A Battleship is a ship with a spinal designed for fleet action.
A Cruiser is a ship with a spinal, designed for independent cruising.
Escorts are smaller ships, subdivided into Destroyers, Frigates, and Corvettes.
Carriers/Tenders carry craft that can fight, such as Fighters and Riders.

 

[McPerth]

For a "Destroyer", we would really need to decide what distinguishes it from a T5 Frigate or Corvette (both of which are "Offensive", so what is a Destroyer designed to "Destroy" in the Hunter/Killer role that is distinct from the Offensive missions of the Frigate and Corvette)? Historically Destroyers killed Torpedo Boats and Submarines; so what is the T5 equivalent, and how is it specially equipped to do so?

Of course the term "offensive" may be relative, but I would not say escorts to be so,as, even if the fleet they're in is on offensive, their role is basically defensive for the larger ships they escort, so while serving on a strategical offensive, their tactical role is defensive, as I see them...

For Defensive Combatants, my guess would be:

• Monitor would be a heavy non-Jump, well-armed/well-armored asset with low acceleration as it stays close to its intended defensive position.
• Defender would be a non-Jump, well-armed but lighter armored and more agile/fast attack hunter-killer designed to go about and engage an approaching enemy and soften them up prior to contact with the Monitors.
• SDBs would be primarily hidden assets designed as small/fast sneak attack non-Jump hunter-killers, or as support craft for the Monitors & Defenders.

Time, ago, for other Traveller versions, I commented my own taxonomy for "static" (non-jump) defense ships, loosely based on the Dreadnought times in war, where cruisers were rated by their main batteries:

• Monitor: non jump capable combat ship armed with spinal weapons
• Heavy SDB: non jump capable combat ship armed with bays
• Light SDB: non jump capable combat ship armed only with turrets

Not sure how useful may this be in T5 design system...

is a difference in semantics at the naval architect's office.

You're right, from the naval architect's office, but the discussion here is about mission codes, and I guess from this POV it's not irrelevant.

It's like the BR/Montior issue I told about before. Again, as you point, from the Architect's desk, it's the same ship

 

[tjoneslo]

You're trying to say that passenger liners aren't merchants or traders (it's not like they "trade" passengers) ... while sidestepping the fact that most passenger liners are commercial ventures.

Freight vs Cargo ... is a difference in semantics at the naval architect's office. The exact same ship class/design can do BOTH of those things, because at the ship design level it's just cargo capacity.

Scheduled route vs unscheduled tramp ... again, at the naval architect's office the difference is one of semantics. The exact same ship class/design can do BOTH of those things, because at the ship design level the question of HOW the ship operates (scheduled vs unscheduled) is up to the owner/crew. It's not a difference that modifies the coding of the ship.

I strongly agree with both of these points. And I see no reason to assign the Mission Codes based upon these differences.

In the Wiki I try emphasis the idea these mission codes are assigned at design time. No one is going to throw MCr100 (or GCr100) into a hopper just to see what comes out.

For the military side I end up agreeing with T5. The terms like Battleship, Cruiser, Destroyer, Escort, or Frigate have specific meanings. Most of these are in relation to the other ships in the same fleet (or corresponding enemy fleets). So abstracting these to "Fleet", "Independent", "Defense", and "Auxiliary" (with the corresponding code of B, C, D, and E; The Naval Office gets their preferences first).

 

[tjoneslo]

A versus M versus R: Why Bother?

The difference between M (Freighter) vs R (Liner) should be viewed as the difference between a Container ship vs a Cruise ship.

You can carry passengers on a Container ship. You might be able to put them into a container and ship them like cargo. And you can carry cargo container on a Cruise ship, but getting them on and off is a challenge.

There is an idea of a ship (the Type A) which has spaces for both, in some kind of balance. These would be smaller simply because getting both on a larger ship introduces inefficiencies that become magnified as the ships get larger.

 

[robject]

We could argue over whether Mission implies Intent. Regardless, intent and mission are often flexible.

Subsidized Liner < Liner. I admit the difference between a Liner and a Subsidized Liner is intent. And intent can be flexible.

Packet < Liner. Thus, a Packet is simply a certain kind of Liner.

Subsidized Merchant < Merchant. Similarly the Merchant and Subsidized Merchant.

Freighter < Transport. And a Freighter is just a flavor of Transport, or vice versa.


I draw the line at Free Trader versus Merchant. They are not, as High Guard suggests, the same. Traveller has imbued them with meaning, and forcing them together feels wrong.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The difference between M (Freighter) vs R (Liner) should be viewed as the difference between a Container ship vs a Cruise ship.

Except ... both are commercial ventures.
Yes a Container ship built to haul cargo is quite a different thing than a Cruise ship built to fleece board passengers ... but at their core, both of them are commercial ships. They're both "merchant" ships. They're not naval combatant ships, they're civilian merchants.

This is why I would argue that in both cases the primary code ought to be M for Merchant.
You can then use the qualifier code (as I outlined previously) to further detail what KIND of merchant ship or civilian commercial venture ship they're intended to be used for, which is where the Container = Transport vs Cruise = Liner distinction becomes relevant so you don't wind up with a one size fits all kind of coding.

But essentially, almost every ship is that is a profit driven civilian commercial concern ought to fall into the primary code designation of being a "dial M for Merchant" coded ship. Yes, there is variety underneath that designation (lots of it!), but those varieties are detailed in the qualifier code, not in the primary code.

I draw the line at Free Trader versus Merchant.

Why?
Are Free Traders not engaged in merchant activities?
Are they not operated primarily for profit?
Are they not used in civilian commercial activities as their primary purpose?

Traveller has imbued them with meaning, and forcing them together feels wrong.

What is one of the mustering out benefits that can be gained from the MERCHANT career?
Oh right, a Free Trader.

What kind of people own and operate most Free Traders?
Oh yeah ... MERCHANTS.

Look, I understand there's tradition involved in your reluctance to let go of ingrained patterns of thinking (that have held sway for over 40 years) ... but when it's time to overhaul a system to streamline it for better usability and functionality, sometimes you need to "let go" of old patterns of thinking in order to embrace a new paradigm.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The exact same ship class/design can do BOTH of those things, because at the ship design level the question of HOW the ship operates (scheduled vs unscheduled) is up to the owner/crew. It's not a difference that modifies the coding of the ship.

Fair enough, but incomplete. I realized fairly late in the project of doing up my Shugushaag freighter that it was a "free trader" layout (integral cargo handling and "auction at the loading ramp" orientation) rather than being optimized for use at developed ports (especially highports). The front loading doors and ramp don't interface well with docking tubes. By contrast, you could easily back a SubMerchant up to a highport's loading dock for quick cargo turnaround.

I'm not sure this invalidates your point about putting a letter to a ship class, but design does play a role in how a ship gets used.

 

[kilemall]

Except ... both are commercial ventures.
Yes a Container ship built to haul cargo is quite a different thing than a Cruise ship built to fleece board passengers ... but at their core, both of them are commercial ships. They're both "merchant" ships. They're not naval combatant ships, they're civilian merchants.

This is why I would argue that in both cases the primary code ought to be M for Merchant.
You can then use the qualifier code (as I outlined previously) to further detail what KIND of merchant ship or civilian commercial venture ship they're intended to be used for, which is where the Container = Transport vs Cruise = Liner distinction becomes relevant so you don't wind up with a one size fits all kind of coding.

But essentially, almost every ship is that is a profit driven civilian commercial concern ought to fall into the primary code designation of being a "dial M for Merchant" coded ship. Yes, there is variety underneath that designation (lots of it!), but those varieties are detailed in the qualifier code, not in the primary code.

Why?
Are Free Traders not engaged in merchant activities?
Are they not operated primarily for profit?
Are they not used in civilian commercial activities as their primary purpose?

What is one of the mustering out benefits that can be gained from the MERCHANT career?
Oh right, a Free Trader.

What kind of people own and operate most Free Traders?
Oh yeah ... MERCHANTS.

Look, I understand there's tradition involved in your reluctance to let go of ingrained patterns of thinking (that have held sway for over 40 years) ... but when it's time to overhaul a system to streamline it for better usability and functionality, sometimes you need to "let go" of old patterns of thinking in order to embrace a new paradigm.

So Terran. The Vilani would like to have a word with you about the virtues of stability and traditions….

 

[Condottiere]

Historically, warship types undergo size inflation and mission creep.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Historically, warship types undergo size inflation and mission creep.

And that's without the sudden transition from small-ship universe to large-ship universe...

 

[tjoneslo]

Except ... both are commercial ventures.
Yes a Container ship built to haul cargo is quite a different thing than a Cruise ship built to fleece board passengers ... but at their core, both of them are commercial ships. They're both "merchant" ships. They're not naval combatant ships, they're civilian merchants.

By this logic there should be only one type for military ships as well. And then use specific modifiers to determine the type.

T5 (T5.10 book 2 p.68) takes this exact approach, using a four level mission type code calling them Service, Activity, Type, and Qualifier. With the final single code letter determined by the selection of the Qualifier level.

The argument you and I have been making has been that the distinctions at the Qualifier level are too fine grained to make a difference in the ship design. That we should use a two level (4 types) or three level (12-14 types) rather than the full four levels (34 types). The approach here is trying to the balance between them.

 

[mike wightman]

Are these ship codes intended for a meta reason or are they a polity specific in game thing?
Why would the Zhodani use the same codes as the K'kree?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I suspect the meta reason is to make you to consider what the ship is for, before you start to design the ship. Note the T5 Ship Design Checklist:

Think it through before you do, just like a software design method.

What's the old saying; "Measure twice, cut once"?

 

[Condottiere]

Also, if you check any particular Jane's Fighting Ships, what you have is a snapshot at a specific moment, or in the Traveller context, at a specific point in the technological (level) tree.

Cruiser was originally a specific mission or capability, rather than a warship type.

 

[robject]

Except ... both are commercial ventures.
...

Look, I understand there's tradition involved in your reluctance to let go of ingrained patterns of thinking (that have held sway for over 40 years) ... but when it's time to overhaul a system to streamline it for better usability and functionality, sometimes you need to "let go" of old patterns of thinking in order to embrace a new paradigm.

Then let's argue your point to absurdity, because its logical conclusion is to conflate all starships into one design: Ship. And here's how.

We start with the Merchant. It carries a payload. Call it a Type A.

The Free Trader is-a Merchant. That means a Merchant is a Merchant too. Clearly Freighter as well. So no Type R or F or T.
Clearly the Liner is a Merchant, so no Type M.
The Scout is a Merchant that only carries passengers. So, no S.
So is the Yacht, and the Safari Ship. No Y, no K.
The Lab ship carries passengers and cargo in the form of lab space. So no L.

Now to martial ships. They are, simply put, armed merchants with payload devoted to war.
So there is no cruiser, escort, defense, frigate, what-have-you.

I can do the same with stations and "private" vessels.


Voila'. There is only the Starship, and the Nonstarship, and the small craft.

 

[whulorigan]

Another thing to keep in mind about the Commercial Vessel classifications:

It is easy to imagine a Liner or Freighter or Transport having a wide range of hull sizes depending on who it was built for and for what purpose:

• A Long Liner (scheduled) could easily go up to 1000-2000 tons if there was a sufficient demand for Interstellar Travel (esp. between A or B Class starports). Smaller vessels might be subsidized semi-private affairs (like the Stellar Class), larger ones owned by a Sector/Mega-Corp.
• The same could be said for a 1000-2000 ton Freighter (scheduled).
• A 1000-2000 ton Transport (unscheduled) could easily be a vessel employed as an Auxiliary by the Navy, Military, IISS, or other Government entity, or as a special purpose vessel run by a mega-corp for its own internal purposes.

But its is hard for me to imagine either a Trader or Packet (or possibly a Merchant) as anything other than a smaller privately owned (or subsidized) vessel in the 100-600 ton range, given its mission specifications.

Thus, there is potentially a meaningful distinction between some of these classifications as regards actual construction from the time of order to delivery from the shipyard.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A Long Liner (scheduled) could easily go up to 1000-2000 tons if there was a sufficient demand for Interstellar Travel (esp. between A or B Class starports). Smaller vessels might be subsidized semi-private affairs (like the Stellar Class), larger ones owned by a Sector/Mega-Corp.

Why so small? According to GT Far Trader large starports handle millions of passenger per year, and really large destinations, such as Terra, in the region of 100 million passengers per year. 1000 Dt ships with at best 100 passengers would be inconveniently small.

Terra shifts a billion Dt cargo every year... That's 40 000 Dt per hour for each of the three major starports.

I would expect to see perhaps 10 000 Dt liners and 100 000 Dt freighters (unless CT and Z-drives) on the major trade routes.


Tiny Free Traders roam the backwaters with planetary pops in the millions, not billions. Even a batckwater world such as Tureded (Pop 5) shifts in the order of 17 000 passengers and 300 000 Dt cargo a year, or 46 passengers and 1000 Dt cargo per day. That's a lot of Free Traders...

Free Traders have the distinction of being about the smallest and cheapest ship you can build. They are not very efficient and presumably not the backbone of the Imperial merchant marine.

 

[robject]

Traders & Gunboats posits 100,000 ton freighters, and that's 1980 (p18).

Clearly not Jump-1 merchants, those (though there is the Hercules).

Some more gems from T&G p18.

• Subsidized trade is the result of government policies [because small scale interstellar trade is often unprofitable].
• Free trade is the most widespread type of interstellar commerce.

^ that last point is interesting, and worthy of a new topic (though we've been down that road many times before with no progress). My impression is it's not true; therefore my view of the Imperium may need adjustment.

 

[whulorigan]

Why so small? According to GT Far Trader large starports handle millions of passenger per year, and really large destinations, such as Terra, in the region of 100 million passengers per year. 1000 Dt ships with at best 100 passengers would be inconveniently small.

Yes, and that is fair, but I am limiting myself to a maximum of 2500 tons, as that is the upper limit of the hull sizes that can be built using the ACS construction rules under T5 (which is where many of the hull codes and class descriptions we are discussing come from).

Tiny Free Traders roam the backwaters with planetary pops in the millions, not billions. Even a batckwater world such as Tureded (Pop 5) shifts in the order of 17 000 passengers and 300 000 Dt cargo a year, or 46 passengers and 1000 Dt cargo per day. That's a lot of Free Traders...

Free Traders have the distinction of being about the smallest and cheapest ship you can build. They are not very efficient and presumably not the backbone of the Imperial merchant marine.

And that is my point. The terms used above to describe various ship missions and types are already somewhat defined and delineated by size constraints. So mission code is not merely a matter of semantics, it also is a matter of the design parameters of the ship.