Proposed Ship mission codes

[AnotherDilbert]

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).

YTU works as you wish, of course.

The ACS ship design system is only "the small ship" design system for T5. It does not imply that all ships are that small. Even with the ACS system we can make much larger ships by adding sub-hulls and using nexus drives.

 

[whulorigan]

YTU works as you wish, of course.

The ACS ship design system is only "the small ship" design system for T5. It does not imply that all ships are that small. Even with the ACS system we can make much larger ships by adding sub-hulls and using nexus drives.

Understood. And I am not arguing for a small ship universe. But I wanted to stay within the design parameters of the published T5.10 rules. I am making a point that the mission codes are not all simple semantics, but also define ship construction based on a size category that potentially goes along with the mission type in some cases. I was not arguing for limitations on the size of commercial ships in the OTU as a setting. My examples above were just that - potential examples.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I don't feel I have any stake in this.

2. I believe that High Guard first mentioned megatonne freighters in Core.

3. Ship purpose or role probably is a more reliably indicator.

4. You're also probably looking at a wide range of tonnages for specific purpose/role ships.

5. You could further use descriptors specific to regions, like Coremax, or Spinmax, based on spacetime facilities available.

 

[whulorigan]

4. You're also probably looking at a wide range of tonnages for specific purpose/role ships.

Agreed. But I believe the tonnage-range of vessels with "Trader" or "Packet" or (possibly) "Merchant" would have a much more restricted (i.e. small) tonnage-range based on their mission profile as compared to the other class-designations.

 

[McPerth]

Free trade is the most widespread type of interstellar commerce.

Sure, but yet I guess they don't represent a high percentage of it (in tonnage).

As someone said time ago, they represent the delivery vans in our RW, while the large freighters represent the trains/ships. I guess we'll al lagree there are more vans than trains or freighter's i nthe world, but the trains or freighters represent the largest percentage, and without them most trade is basically local...

I am making a point that the mission codes are not all simple semantics, but also define ship construction based on a size category that potentially goes along with the mission type in some cases.

While I agree about mission codes are not only semantics, I don't believe they define the ship construction, as the same ship may have several missions (and probably codes too), as I already pointed before


Another point is that maybe we're taking too much effort in two points that might not be any longer valid

1. The roles comparative with sea naval ships
2. Setting the mission codes in just two letters.

I mean, roles for ships change, even in wet navies.

Destroyers began as escorts against Torpedo Boats, then assumed the torpedo boats themselves, when they were used to fire torpedoes to the larger ships in battle, while keeping their roles as escorts (this time mostly against aircrafts and submarines), and now are the capital ships themselves in man ya Navy.

Likewise, Cruisers were at the begining ships intended for independent action, be it scouting, raiding, etc, but latter on they became more heavy escorts. Does anyone see an AEGIS cruiser as a ship intended for independent action?

And that's not to talk about poliical matters affecting the ship stated cathegory... Some US Destroyers would be cruisers if not for them, and the Russian Kutnezov was stated as a Cruiser because there are limitation for Carriers to cross the Bosphorus straits...

In fact, we don't know what the Space Navy roles would be, and some might surprise us, so needing new cathegories or modifying them. I'm not sure the Destroyer vs Frigate will be kept (even today I see them quite mixted), probably seeing all of them as just Escorts...


As for limiting the mission codes to two letters, see that while this is the most common in wet navies, it's not exceptional to add more letters when needed. So we can have a submarine (SS) whith a G added because its mission is to launch guided missiles and an N because it has Nuclear propulsion, so having the SSGN...

And never forget other codes being used, as the owner before the name (current examples would be HMS, USS, etc.).

 

[whulorigan]

Another point is that maybe we're taking too much effort in two points that might not be any longer valid

1. The roles comparative with sea naval ships
2. Setting the mission codes in just two letters.

I mean, roles for ships change, even in wet navies.

Yes, but my response above was directed specifically at Commercial Vessel construction.

Destroyers began as escorts against Torpedo Boats, then assumed the torpedo boats themselves, when they were used to fire torpedoes to the larger ships in battle, while keeping their roles as escorts (this time mostly against aircrafts and submarines), and now are the capital ships themselves in many a Navy.

Likewise, Cruisers were at the begining ships intended for independent action, be it scouting, raiding, etc, but latter on they became more heavy escorts. Does anyone see an AEGIS cruiser as a ship intended for independent action?

And that's not to talk about political matters affecting the ship stated category... Some US Destroyers would be cruisers if not for them, and the Russian Kutnezov was stated as a Cruiser because there are limitation for Carriers to cross the Bosphorus straits...

In fact, we don't know what the Space Navy roles would be, and some might surprise us, so needing new categories or modifying them. I'm not sure the Destroyer vs Frigate will be kept (even today I see them quite mixed), probably seeing all of them as just Escorts...

All good points.

As for limiting the mission codes to two letters, see that while this is the most common in wet navies, it's not exceptional to add more letters when needed. So we can have a submarine (SS) whith a G added because its mission is to launch guided missiles and an N because it has Nuclear propulsion, so having the SSGN...

In T5.10 up to three letters (potentially four) are technically permissible as mission codes/modifiers. In fact, I was just looking at CT:HG yesterday, and something that was dropped between the '79 and '80 edition was that the '79 edition explicitly stated that an assigned mission code could have two or more additional qualifiers potentially. This comment is not in the '80 edition, and many people who only had '80 may have just assumed that a mission code & qualifier could be no more than 2 letters (I forget if MT made an explicit specification in its ruleset).

 

[whulorigan]

And never forget other codes being used, as the owner before the name (current examples would be HMS, USS, etc.).

For Government/Military:

INS = Imperial Navy Ship
ISS = Imperial Scout Ship

Somewhere in T5 Marc mentioned that civilian vessels do not use name prefixes like "S.S." or "M.S." in the modern world. But then in his published deck plans the Beowulf is "TGS Beowulf" (TGS = Trade Guild Ship).

 

[robject]

TL;DR

T5's core rules are perfectly fine for 3,000 ton transports, the Sloan-class Escort, and things without spines.


Boring Text

The T5 core book's limitation is no spine rules. Thus T5 cannot design anything with a spine. Everything else is open season.

It mentions (theoretically) engineering a power plant to fit a 190,000 ton hull on page 63 of book 2. Page 100 talks about the drive nexus in general.

The book limits itself to a maximum drive potential of 9Z9... enough to supply Jump-6 to a 64,000 ton hull, or Jump-2 to a 194,000 ton hull. This is also an arbitrary limit, since the rules extend naturally.

But yes, the ACS cutoff is at 2400 tons -- though "reality" seems a bit fuzzier.

 

[whulorigan]

The T5 core book's limitation is no spine rules. Thus T5 cannot design anything with a spine. Everything else is open season.

It mentions (theoretically) engineering a power plant to fit a 190,000 ton hull on page 63 of book 2. Page 100 talks about the drive nexus in general.

The book limits itself to a maximum drive potential of 9Z9... enough to supply Jump-6 to a 64,000 ton hull, or Jump-2 to a 194,000 ton hull. This is also an arbitrary limit, since the rules extend naturally.

But yes, the ACS cutoff is at 2400 tons -- though "reality" seems a bit fuzzier.

But we would need to extrapolate drive performance for a given hull size over 2400 tons (Code Z) based on the existing performance tables in T5.10 Book 2, p.78. Doable (and I think there is a clear pattern in the performance progression, IIRC).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But we would need to extrapolate drive performance for a given hull size over 2400 tons (Code Z) based on the existing performance tables in T5.10 Book 2, p.78. Doable (and I think there is a clear pattern in the performance progression, IIRC).

The Drive Potential Table is quite regular and just follows the EP method of calculating potential that works for any size of ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The T5 core book's limitation is no spine rules. Thus T5 cannot design anything with a spine. Everything else is open season.

It has Main weapon mounts. Main is supposed to be some sort of small spine:

B1, p152:
Spines are the most powerful weapons a ship can carry. The Spine designation includes Main Weapons (which are larger than Bay Weapons, but fall short of the immense power of Spines).

 

[whulorigan]

The Drive Potential Table is quite regular and just follows the EP method of calculating potential that works for any size of ship.

Yes, but how many EPs do you need to give J-3 performance in a 20 kton hull?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, but how many EPs do you need to give J-3 performance in a 20 kton hull?

B2, p63.

P = 2EP/H => P/EP = 2/H => 1/EP = 2/(H×P) => EP = H×P/2.

So, for a 20 000 Dt and Potential 3:
EP = 20000 × 3 / 2 = 30 000 EP.

For example a 3V5 drive.

 

[whulorigan]

View attachment 2788
B2, p63.

P = 2EP/H => P/EP = 2/H => 1/EP = 2/(H×P) => EP = H×P/2.

So, for a 20 000 Dt and Potential 3:
EP = 20000 × 3 / 2 = 30 000 EP.

For example a 3V5 drive.

I had forgotten the Formula Table.
I was working off the Drive-Letter Table.

Thanks.

 

[Condottiere]

Nine sets of nine bundled engines is still legal?

In theory, nothing should stop a manufacturer from building larger engines.

Smaller ones tend to be a tad controversial.

 

[robject]

Nine sets of nine bundled engines is still legal?

It is, but it is (maybe) analogous to a weapon battery: they're all mashed into one unit.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Smaller ones tend to be a tad controversial.

If by controversial you mean explicitly banned, yes:

B2, p77:
No drive may be smaller than the Drive-A of the class, even after modifications like Stage Effects.

Small craft uses some other rules, that seems to be MIA the last few versions?

 

[Spinward Flow]

For example, you express understanding in my backwardness, which only amuses my sarcastic side:

Then you have completely misunderstood what was being said and why I said it.

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)

Tradition involved?
Yes, obviously.

Ingrained patterns of thinking involved?
Yes.

Duration of those patterns of thinking (in the Traveller context)?
40+ years (going back to 1977 actually).

Reluctance to overturn past precedents?
Plentiful.

Reluctance to embrace a new paradigm?
Clearly.
Also more commonly known as "ain't broke/don't fix" ...

Everything in the statement I made is completely true.
It's also a more universal truth than something unique and specific to this topic.

Politics, religion, loyalty to a sports team or to celebrities, technological innovation ... take your pick ... when there's tradition involved in an ingrained pattern of thinking that has held sway for a long period of time, there's going to be a reluctance among people to overthrow a past paradigm in favor of embracing a new one.

For more egregious manifestations of this phenomenon, there's issue of Paradigm Paralysis which goes beyond reluctance.

Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking.

---

My point was that if you're going to "overhaul the paradigm" of primary mission codes like you explicitly stated was the purpose of the exercise in your OP ... you might as well "do a proper job of it" and do a wholesale reexamination of the primary codes and what they are meant to be used FOR. What information are those mission codes intended to convey? Which ones can be combined to streamline the system?

If you're going to scrape off the barnacles and cruft that's built up over time ... then go ahead and scrape off the barnacles and cruft to get to a sleeker paradigm for how to think about these things that will be cleaner to work with moving forward.

When you start from the position of wanting to "overhaul the paradigm" of primary mission codes, it's a bit rich to say that half a dozen redundant commercial codes need to be retained because ... tradition/reasons ... when two of them are literally A-Merchant and M-Merchant.

---

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

I disagree.

The starting point is the roles of civilian, paramilitary and military.
Everything else is a further refinement of those categories from there.

A lot of primary mission codes apply exclusively to a single starting role (like military battleship, for example) while others can have multiple (like civilian, paramilitary and military hospital craft).

There can be civilian Tenders (for L-Hyd drop tank services, for example).
There can be paramilitary Tenders (the Express Boat Tender would be an example of this).
There can be military Tenders (usually for Battle Riders).

The demands of each environment and operational use case winds up being quite different, leading to a variety of different designs ... but they're still all Tenders (in this example). Whether the best design to fulfill those requirements is a starship, nonstarship or small craft is substantially immaterial to the primary code that ought to be used for craft used to perform those functions. Different craft "fit" different primary codes differently.

Then let's argue your point to absurdity, because its logical conclusion is to conflate all starships into one design

When your explicitly stated goal is achieve absurdity ... the danger isn't that you'll find it, but that you'll look ridiculous when you do because of what you had to do to achieve your stated goal.

And to be clear beyond doubt, I wasn't attempting to conflate all craft into one design.
Only you attempted to do that ... on your own ... without prompting ... in search of absurdity.
Congratulations, you found your own absurdity, just like you threatened promised.
Why are you annoyed at being called on it when you were so proud of the "logic" of your discovery?



Your turn.

 

[tjoneslo]

If you want a "clean sheet" approach to primary codes, paring down what is found in LBB5.80, p26 ... here is what I would do:

1. A = Auxiliary, Small Craft
2. B = Battle
3. C = Carrier, Cruiser
4. D = Destroyer
5. E = Escort
6. F = Frigate
7. J = Prospector, Extraction, Refinery
8. M = Merchant
9. P = Patrol, Picket, Policing, System Defense
10. R = Raider, Corsair
11. S = Scout, Station, Lab, Medical, Science
12. T = Tanker, Barge
13. X = Express
14. Y = Yacht, Safari, Touring

From this list I find the differences between an Escort, a Frigate, a Patrol or SD, and a Raider/Corsair could be expressed through the secondary codes. There isn't enough difference between them to assign different primary codes.

I would split the Station out to give it a separate code (e.g. W) as there are enough differences in design for a station and the other items it should be a separate code.

If you're not going to spit the Merchants into "Liners" and "Cargo", I wouldn't split out the Tanker/Barge either, and instead (as before) relying on the secondary codes to determine what is being carried by the ship (and the performance thereof).

 

[Spinward Flow]

I would split the Station out to give it a separate code (e.g. W) as there are enough differences in design for a station and the other items it should be a separate code.

Good call.

From this list I find the differences between an Escort, a Frigate, a Patrol or SD, and a Raider/Corsair could be expressed through the secondary codes. There isn't enough difference between them to assign different primary codes.

I would not be so hasty as to throw all of those together into a singular bucket.
Let me explain my reasoning (in a Traveller context here).

P = Patrol, Picket, Policing, System Defense
R = Raider, Corsair

The distinction that I would make here is a question of Law ... as in which side of the Law you're operating on.
Under my proposal, P coded ships would be operating under color of law, while R coded ships would effectively be outlaws.
So the P ships are the system defense forces and the R ships are the pirates (in the wet navy sense) at the paramilitary organization level.

At the military level, P coded ships would literally be the Military Police ships, while R coded ships would be the special forces mobility assets (that no one is supposed to know about, aside from those who Need To Know™).

I'll grant you that the two codes are complimentary, but I see them as naturally opposing missions (measure vs countermeasure) rather than something to conflate into a single mission code.

E = Escort
F = Frigate

This is DEFINITELY one of those cases where nuance carries the deeper meaning.

To my mind, E coded ships are meant to operate in concert with other ships ... they're Escorts, not soloists. The primary definition of an escort (in my mind) is that the escorts are intended to protect and screen other craft, so their mission is "multiplayer defensive" focused rather than having them go off and do their own thing. Their primary mission is protective, rather than hunter/killer.

By contrast, F coded ships are designed to be capable of independent action without support from other naval elements ... they're Frigates that can be tasked with missions that only require a single ship to perform. These missions can be various and sundry ... show the flag, training exercises with local military forces, monitoring and SIGINT, special forces transport ... lots of grab bag missions that don't necessarily involve direct combat with other ships and craft. Basically, "workhorse" ships that can go it alone when they need to that are capable of doing lots of support missions in service of naval priorities.

D coded ships are explicitly Destroyers, meaning they are "tip of the spear" dedicated anti-ship combatants. Their job is go out and "blow stuff up" as quickly as possible, without "wasting tonnage" on other mission roles or priorities. One of those "not a pound for ground" types of design and mission tasking philosophies. Destroyers are meant to be ACS space superiority, as opposed to BCS scale space superiority, meant to "wreak havoc" upon opposing (small ship) forces as efficiently as possible.

Now, you can take a Destroyer and press it into Escort duty or assign it to Frigate missions.
You can take a Frigate and assign it to Destroyer duty or use it as an Escort to protect convoys or fleets.
Same for the Escorts.

There's going to be some overlap between the Destroyers, the Escorts and the Frigates in that you can often times (not always, but often times) take a ship meant for one role and press gang it at need into the other roles ... but that doesn't in turn mean that such as ship will be equally (or even ideally) suited for all three missions in equal measure.

By the time you've got a "complete overlap" of the Destroyer, Escort AND Frigate roles combined ... you have a C coded Cruiser, that is a more balanced blend of all three.

That's the vector of my thinking on the topic.