• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Starship Scale in Campaigns

McPerth and Rancke already touched on some conclusions I was drawing while reading up.

This is where my current thinking is. I'll throw it out for discussion.

The Imp Navy has big ships... really big ships. Current naval tactics seem to be along the lines of WW I naval combat... lines of battleships slugging it out (this is out of various sources, I kind of raised an eyebrow at it, but I can live with it). The big fleets are mainly there for interstellar wars... Imps vs Aslan, Imps vs Zho, Imps vs K'kree, Imps vs each other. The idea of these ships being used to patrol for pirates seems silly to me. You just do NOT use a 500,000 dT battleship to patrol for a 400 dT pirate corsair... the expense of deploying just one of those ships (much less its battlegroup of escorts and support vessels) would be more than what that corsair could steal in a year! But... borrowing from real world navies, we do know that during the Cold War when the US, UK, USSR, etc navies were at their peak, piracy dropped to almost nothing because of just their presence (since they've all scaled back in the last decade, piracy is on the increase). I would assume having these ships doing routine navy stuff would have the same effect. That is, a BatRon and its support might move along a major sector lane going from naval base to naval base. This would be part of routine training, maneuvers, transporting personel and equipment, and so forth same as real world sea navies do. Just by being there the pirates stay away (cause even if it isn't cost effective to kill a corsair with a cruiser, that's really not much comfort to the pirate who just got obliterated by said cruiser :rofl: ). Off the main trade lanes (sector wide and sub-sector wide lanes, cf Merchant Prince) the navy doesn't normally venture, which is where piracy becomes a problem.

That gives me a reasonable basis for explaining where those big ships are and what they normally are doing.

Then there are planetary fleets. Personally, I don't see most planetary fleets having anything larger than a 5,000... maybe a 10,000 dT ship. McPerth and Rancke already touched on some of the reasons why. Most of the wealthy worlds that could really afford big ships are likely already on a major trade lane and see the Imp Navy come through regularly (if they aren't stationed there, if you have a Imp BatRon stationed in system, do you really need to build your own?). For them piracy isn't going to be much of a problem and invasion isn't much of a worry either... so why spend the megacredits on big ships when it could be spent on wellfare programs to get votes, or a new governors palace, or infrastructure, or some other such. Planets off the major trade lanes are less able to afford such big ships, let's say such a backwater planet could afford 5 100,000 dT cruisers... which is better, those five big ships or a larger and more flexible fleet of smaller patrol ships... the smaller ship fleet in most cases makes more sense to me. The exception to this might be border areas or areas with a lot of unrest, they might want a "beefier" defense fleet for obvious reasons.

So then I thought about what a planetary fleet might look like. I concluded that for most worlds the backbone would actually be a 400 dT patrol cruiser (if I could just remember which book I saw it in) for the following reason... its the "squad car" in space. That is, if the Imp Navy takes care of the big stuff and the Imp Army takes care of big ground wars... most planets really don't have to invest in major defense... the Imperium does that for them. So what they do have to worry about are things like piracy, smuggling, kidnapping, reckless piloting, navigational hazards, disabled ships in distress, etc. A patrol cruiser is fairly fast, carries a squad of marines for inspections, boarding, arrests, etc. Being smaller and much cheaper a planet could afford to have perhaps several hundred of these ships patrolling in shifts. With far more of them, they can effectively patrol a larger portion of the solar system than could say 5 big cruisers, and the patrol cruiser in most cases has about all the firepower they'll typically need. They'd be doing checks on incoming traffic, cargo inspections, watching for trouble, etc. This seems like a much more effective and cost efficient way for an individual system to handle local piracy. They might have some larger 2k-5k "cutters" or "frigates" for dealing with major problems and serving as the space equivalent of SWAT. If something comes up that needs more than that, they call the Imp Navy to deal with it.

Again, the exception would be worlds under threat, such as border worlds or worlds with civil unrest, balkanized governments, etc. These might each try to field their own "navies" going for as much tonnage as they can afford. But such worlds would be the exception, not the rule.

There it is, a rough outline of what I'm developing for my own use about who has what tonnage ships, why and what they do with them.

As always, constructive commentary, ideas, suggestions, etc. are welcome.
 
There is another solution by this kind of planet: armed merchants or dual pourpose built crafts.

This way, they can use their navy to earn some money too, enlarging their flet budget. Aakin of a state owned merchant line with combat capability.

For search and rescue and customs duty on their own system, I think armed pinnaces or ship's boats can do, and they are quite less expensive.

Time ago, for a camapign I was refeering, I even designed (MT rules)some crafts just to have a small planetary navy for a lowPop planet (pop 4-5), all having those dual pourpose (civilian/military) on mind.
 
Just because a world can afford big ships do they need them?

Their Navel budget would be in proportion to the risk factor.

Are they at war?
Have they been at war lately?
Have they been at war in teh last 500 years?
Is their a Imp base in system?
Is their a Imp Base nearby?
Are they a rich world or a poor world?
Can they make their own or import them?
Can they fix them or do they need high tech help?

Lots of factors can play into the size of a world's fleet.
Absolutely. And the setting detail about the Third Imperium in Striker allows for considerable variety:


SECTION IV: INTEGRATION WITH TRAVELLER

[...]

Rule 73.B. Military spending: The average expenditure of a nation or world on its military is 3% of its GNP; on worlds where the state of international tension is high, this may range as high as 15%; where little conflict has been experienced for extended peroids of time the military budget may be as low as 1% of the GNP.

The total military budget must be divided by the army and the navy. The proportion allocated to the army averages 40% on most worlds, but averages only 6% on worlds with vacuum or trace atmospheres. Planetary defenses are jointly funded by the army and the navy; the referee must decide what effect this will have on the army budget.

On Imperial worlds, roughly 30% of the total military budget goes to the Imperium for maintenance of the Imperial military. On independent worlds, the entire defense budget is available for local defense.

[Striker, Bk. 2, p. 38]​


So you could have, say, a defense budget of 5 or 6% on worlds along the Imperial border and 1% on worlds in the Imperial Core.

I also have a notion that high-population worlds would have defense budgets that was lower, percentage-wise, than worlds with smaller populations. A medium-population world on the border of the Vargr Extents might well be motivated to finance a couple of SDBs even if it required some real hardships to pay for. Trin, OTOH, might not feel the need for more than half a dozen BatRons and CruRons (That is, the equivalent in system defenses).


Hans
 
Then there are planetary fleets. Personally, I don't see most planetary fleets having anything larger than a 5,000... maybe a 10,000 dT ship.
The problem with that (speaking only about the OTU, of course) is that we know what the average planetary navy budget is, and its more than the Imperium gets. The Imperium get "roughly 30%" of the planetary defense spending, leaving 70% to the planet. Of this, an average of 4/10ths goes to the army, leaving 6/10ths, or 1.26% of GNP to the planetary navy. This means that a world like Trin (TL15, 10 billion people, Industrial trade classification) has a naval budget of 10 billion (population) * 22,000 (per capita GNP) * 1.4 (trade modifier) * 0.0126 = BCr3,880. This is enough to maintain just under 39 trillion credit squadrons...

Granted, if we reduce the military spending from the Imperial average of 3% to the Imperial minimum of 1%, we only have to account for one third as much money. Still, you really want some dreadnaughts to soak up some of that budget.

Oh, and there are a couple of reasons why a world like Trin might want some BatRons and CruRons of its own. One is to fulfil treaty obligations to support the Imperium in wartime, and another is to get a bit of respect from the Imperium in peacetime.


Hans
 
This means that a world like Trin (TL15, 10 billion people, Industrial trade classification) has a naval budget of 10 billion (population) * 22,000 (per capita GNP) * 1.4 (trade modifier) * 0.0126 = BCr3,880. ...

Yep, and a planet like that hanging out in the breeze isn't going to take chances that the Imp Fleet will make it in time to stave off the next major invasion attempt. WAY too much at stake.
 
The problem with that (speaking only about the OTU, of course) is that we know what the average planetary navy budget is, and its more than the Imperium gets. The Imperium get "roughly 30%" of the planetary defense spending, leaving 70% to the planet. Of this, an average of 4/10ths goes to the army, leaving 6/10ths, or 1.26% of GNP to the planetary navy. This means that a world like Trin (TL15, 10 billion people, Industrial trade classification) has a naval budget of 10 billion (population) * 22,000 (per capita GNP) * 1.4 (trade modifier) * 0.0126 = BCr3,880. This is enough to maintain just under 39 trillion credit squadrons...

Granted, if we reduce the military spending from the Imperial average of 3% to the Imperial minimum of 1%, we only have to account for one third as much money. Still, you really want some dreadnaughts to soak up some of that budget.

Oh, and there are a couple of reasons why a world like Trin might want some BatRons and CruRons of its own. One is to fulfil treaty obligations to support the Imperium in wartime, and another is to get a bit of respect from the Imperium in peacetime.


Hans

I don't have Strike, so I calculated Trin's naval budget as per TCS rules (as both are decanonized in this way, any of our figures may be acceptable).

This way, numbers are: 10000000000 people*500 Cr/person*1.15 (as gov 9 gives on TCS tables)=5750 BCr. From that a 30% goes to empire, so Trin has 4025 BCr., even a little more than in your figures.
 
I don't have Strike, so I calculated Trin's naval budget as per TCS rules (as both are decanonized in this way, any of our figures may be acceptable).
Oh sure. These are just ballpark figures. However, if we accept Robert's (Robject's) statement about Striker and TCS not actually being decanonized but just not supposed to be used when inappropriate (which I do), then the section that specifically and explicitly makes statements about the Third Imperium must be considered canon for the Third Imperium. Not so?

This way, numbers are: 10000000000 people*500 Cr/person*1.15 (as gov 9 gives on TCS tables)=5750 BCr. From that a 30% goes to empire, so Trin has 4025 BCr., even a little more than in your figures.
The way I reconcile TCS with Striker is to say that it is a) simplified in a different way to allow for TCS-type gameplay rather the Striker-type gameplay, and b) applies to pocket empires lying next to other (hostile) pocket empires rather than the Imperium.

Specifically, I assume that the Cr500 figure is a simplified way to calculate a peacetime military expenditure of 10% of GWP, of which half goes to the army. This would correspond to a per capita GNP of 10,000, which is what a TL9 world has according to Striker. That is admittedly a little low to be an average TL for pocket empire worlds, but not egregiously so. And the neat thing about it is that if you use the government modifications from TCS, you get a maximum peacetime expenditure of 10% and a maximum wartime expenditure of 15%, which fits very nicely with Striker's range from 1 to 15%.

(Incidentally, I ought to have applied the government modifiers from TCS in my "consolidated Striker/TCS calculations", but I don't have my copy of TCS handy.)


Hans
 
Last edited:
However, if we accept Robert's (Robject's) statement about Striker and TCS not actually being decanonized but just not supposed to be used when inappropriate (which I do), then the section that specifically and explicitly makes statements about the Third Imperium must be considered canon for the Third Imperium. Not so?


Not so.

Here's what Dom wrote about Striker and TCS just yesterday.

Striker and TCS aren't decanonized. The caveat is not to apply them to unintended purposes.

IE: Don't use the strategic elements to extrapolate economic circumstances on the Imperium, or Charted Space as a whole. They are quite fine as games, building weapons, or using the Islands Clusters setting material to run a campaign in.

DO NOT use them to extrapolate economic circumstances in the Imperium and Charted Space as you and HGB continue to do. DO use them to build weapons, pay game of TCS and Striker, or for Islands setting materials as you and HGB are not.

You and HGB are using Striker and TCS for unintended purposes despite being told you're using them for unintended purposes and your lame excuse about there being nothing to replace the Striker and TCS rules you're deliberately using incorrectly is nothing but a lame excuse.

Budgets contain far political decisions than economic ones. This isn't some version of "Civilization" where, when you tell a city to build a chariot, that city always builds that chariot and it always costs the same amount of money.

Military budgets are and have been limited from their economic maximum in reality and military budgets in the Imperium will limited in the same way. Following that real life example and Marc Miller's own rules, BardicHeart can set the number of large ships the worlds in his campaigns build to whatever he wants.
 
Here's what Dom wrote about Striker and TCS just yesterday.


DO NOT use them to extrapolate economic circumstances in the Imperium and Charted Space as you and HGB continue to do. DO use them to build weapons, pay game of TCS and Striker, or for Islands setting materials as you and HGB are not.

You and HGB are using Striker and TCS for unintended purposes despite being told you're using them for unintended purposes...
Unintended?


SECTION IV: INTEGRATION WITH TRAVELLER

[...]

Rule 73.B. Military spending: The average expenditure of a nation or world on its military is 3% of its GNP; on worlds where the state of international tension is high, this may range as high as 15%; where little conflict has been experienced for extended peroids of time the military budget may be as low as 1% of the GNP.

The total military budget must be divided by the army and the navy. The proportion allocated to the army averages 40% on most worlds, but averages only 6% on worlds with vacuum or trace atmospheres. Planetary defenses are jointly funded by the army and the navy; the referee must decide what effect this will have on the army budget.

On Imperial worlds, roughly 30% of the total military budget goes to the Imperium for maintenance of the Imperial military. On independent worlds, the entire defense budget is available for local defense.

[Striker, Bk. 2, p. 38]​


...and your lame excuse about there being nothing to replace the Striker and TCS rules you're deliberately using incorrectly is nothing but a lame excuse.
If that witty, incisive argument didn't impress me the first couple of times you used it, it's not likely to improve with repetition.

As I've already told you once, my "excuse" for using these figures is that they fit with real world figures and with the Imperium's political situation. If you want to dispute that, show that they don't fit with real world figures or that the Imperium is not bordered by two hostile empires with gross products on the same order of magnitude as itself, a homicidal culture dedicated to the destruction of all non-vegetarians, and two robber cultures.

Incidentally, they also fit (more or less -- same order of magnitude, anyway) with the canonical figures for the Imperial Navy in MT:Rebellion Sourcebook.


Hans
 
Last edited:
The other thing to keep in mind is that you have to pay for the infrastructure out of that naval budget. It doesn't just go to ships, it also pays for basing, repair parts, housing, R&D, maintenence, pay & allowances, etc.

I always take the Striker/TCS calculations & then divide by 10 - This number gets me how much I can spend for ships. Everything else goes to infrastructre.


This actually shrinks the Navy to where it actually can't be everywhere in overwhelming strength. Using the Trin's system as an example, Now there is enough to pay for 4 Trillion Credits of Ships. Which gives quite a bit of striking power. Sink 1T in system defenses (deep meson sites, etc), 1 T in small (less than 1K) patrol vessels, SDBs, etc. & 1.9T in Jump going CRURONS that belong to the Reserve Fleet.

Oh, yeah one more thing.....
The GM decides what constitutes "unintended purposes".

Not you Orr. But thanks for sharing.
 
The other thing to keep in mind is that you have to pay for the infrastructure out of that naval budget. It doesn't just go to ships, it also pays for basing, repair parts, housing, R&D, maintenence, pay & allowances, etc.

True. However, R&D can be taken out of the equation (it is a big part of the US mil budget) as the gov can use Imperial standard designs. The other parts are needed however as you state.
 
Specifically, I assume that the Cr500 figure is a simplified way to calculate a peacetime military expenditure of 10% of GWP, of which half goes to the army. This would correspond to a per capita GNP of 10,000, which is what a TL9 world has according to Striker. That is admittedly a little low to be an average TL for pocket empire worlds, but not egregiously so. And the neat thing about it is that if you use the government modifications from TCS, you get a maximum peacetime expenditure of 10% and a maximum wartime expenditure of 15%, which fits very nicely with Striker's range from 1 to 15%.

(Incidentally, I ought to have applied the government modifiers from TCS in my "consolidated Striker/TCS calculations", but I don't have my copy of TCS handy.)


Hans

The factor of if peace or war is stated on the gov modifier in TCS (in the case of Trin, on war the modificer whould be 1.2, as gov 9 is one with low peace/war differences. In other goverment types differenc may go from 0.5 in peace to 1.5 if at war).

Not so.

Here's what Dom wrote about Striker and TCS just yesterday.



DO NOT use them to extrapolate economic circumstances in the Imperium and Charted Space as you and HGB continue to do. DO use them to build weapons, pay game of TCS and Striker, or for Islands setting materials as you and HGB are not.

You and HGB are using Striker and TCS for unintended purposes despite being told you're using them for unintended purposes and your lame excuse about there being nothing to replace the Striker and TCS rules you're deliberately using incorrectly is nothing but a lame excuse.

.

And I stated they were decanonized in that way, but I don't think having no other figures is a lame excuse. They are the only ones we have and so we use them. Accurate or not, they serve as a comparison.

Budgets contain far political decisions than economic ones. This isn't some version of "Civilization" where, when you tell a city to build a chariot, that city always builds that chariot and it always costs the same amount of money.

Military budgets are and have been limited from their economic maximum in reality and military budgets in the Imperium will limited in the same way. Following that real life example and Marc Miller's own rules, BardicHeart can set the number of large ships the worlds in his campaigns build to whatever he wants.

We know it. I told about that in my yesterday entry on page 5 this forum. that's why we're saying probably Trim whould have less navy budget (in comparison for its pop and TL) than other systems that can see themselves more threatened (e.g. Regina).
 
The other thing to keep in mind is that you have to pay for the infrastructure out of that naval budget. It doesn't just go to ships, it also pays for basing, repair parts, housing, R&D, maintenence, pay & allowances, etc.

I always take the Striker/TCS calculations & then divide by 10 - This number gets me how much I can spend for ships. Everything else goes to infrastructre.
Except that TCS already takes that into account. It mandates paying 10% of a ship's purchase price per year to maintain it. That's a lot of money. Your modification would make the cost of maintaining a ship equivalent to buying a new one each year. Pardon me if I think that's a tad unrealistic.

Oh, yeah one more thing.....
The GM decides what constitutes "unintended purposes".

Not you Orr. But thanks for sharing.
What a reasonable reader gets out of reading the text is a good guess at the author's intentions. That doesn't mean Marc Miller can't have changed his mind about it later. But as I already said once, he can't actually change the laws of logic. If ships cost somewhere in the neighborhood of what the ship construction rules say the cost, high-population worlds can afford lots and lots of ships. And if the Imperium is facing enemies like the Solomani Confederation and the Zhodani Consulate, then it either spends quite a bit on it's defenses, or it has an unspoken agreement with both The Confederation and the Consulate (not to mention The 2000 Worlds) to limit their military spending considerably, which seems to me about as plausible as the US and the USSR agreeing to limit their military spending during the Cold War.


Hans
 
Last edited:
Hans: I know how that Striker section reads. And the TCS section too. And we both know Marc and Frank were thinking local small campaigns for gaming purposes, not an economic simulation across 25 sectors.

Marc's said as much. I remember Ed Edward's snail-mailed discussion letters back in the mid-80s (those were fun... sigh) when someone did all the math and put together the numbers.

Orr (and others): You guys do realize that all of canon is really only relevant for publication, right? Referees can do whatever they want. And, yes, if they want to go the "big ship universe" route and use the Striker/TCS numbers as valid, they can (I've done it myself).

It's like a discussion Joe Fugate had about skills and tasks for MT at GenCon. Someone had gone through all the MT publications, collecting tasks and put them in a library. Joe's response was that they never intended for someone to do that -- they meant for Referees to invent tasks on the fly, ignoring the books.

And that's how Traveller should be run for local campaigns. Let the Referees take their players where they want, on the fly, not looking up obscure canon facts and interrupting play.
 
Except that TCS already takes that into account. It mandates paying 10% of a ship's purchase price per year to maintain it. That's a lot of money. Your modification would make the cost of maintaining a ship equivalent to buying a new one each year. Pardon me if I think that's a tad unrealistic.
Hans

That is because you haven't worked these types of military budgets in real life. I have. Calculate up just the cost of ship's payroll. Now add in consumables. Now add in your training budget for your personnel. Now add exercise costs. I can go on and on and on and we haven't even gotten to base costs (PX, Commisary, MWR, and on and on), administrative overhead (Those staffs have to be paid by someone), budget overruns (that's not a bolt, that's a MILSPEC bolt!) retirement costs (Most of your players are drawing a retirement check, that has to come from somewhere especially with all those damned long lived Vilani - retire @ 38 & collect a pension for the next 80 years), the Imperium's version of TRICARE etc.

10% would not even begin to cover the costs.

A 90% tooth-to-tail ratio is nowhere near reality. 10% tooth to tail is much more realistic. Dig through any military budget & you will see where the money goes. Weapons systems are so much more expensive today (as a percentage) is because they are built at such a low volume & contruction times are spread out to meet budget requirements (You could say that each one is custum built.). Oh yeah, and there is also political interference - The Air Forces doesn't keep buying C-130s because they need them, they are forced on the Air Force to keep production lines open & about the only good paying jobs in GA.

Now on to what is actually important about this & why it matters...

How does all of this affect the players? Well, for the most part, it doesn't. What it does do is provide a basis for a Referee to build a background, that may or may not impact a player. It is all about flavor & "you aren't in Kansas anymore". My players never worry about Fleet composition. They just know that there are a lot of them out there & they may occasionally pass by a CA-13 on manuevers. They may be occasionally stopped by a Fer-de-Lance on customs duty. They may hear of a BATRON's SP high-tailing it to a bar to break up a "discussion" between soldiers & sailors (There are no marines IMTU.)

I don't have any Deus Ex Machina rescues of players when they step in it. There are however, enough Navy ships moving around in the background, that one can show up if I feel it is necessary without making it real obvious.
 
Last edited:
I don't know to what extent (if any) traveller derived wargames can be considered canon, but, has any of you played Invason: Earth or FFW?

In Invasion: Earth, the Terran space deffenses are about 8 BatDrons (each about 2-8 tenderless BRs as told on rules) and 34 SDB squadrons (each about 50 SDB of varios sizes). That's about 40 BRs and 1700 SDBs. Earth is pop A (sorry, I don't know the multiplier at the solomani war times) and TL 14.

Of course, some of the BRs may not be really from Earth planetary Navy, but equaly true is that most of it was lost on the previous battles or retreated deeper on the Solomani Sphere to reagroup. SDBs are, off course, all from Earth planetary Navy.

In MT, a SDB costs arround MCr 300 (400 dton), so, if all were this kind of SDB, we're talking about MCr 510000 worth SDB fleet (probably many of those SDB are not this standard class, and quite many are larger, as they can challenge BatDrons).

Likewise. in FFW some planets have huge system SDBs. Enought to challenge whole battlefleets. I'm sorry Trim isn't on the map, but Porozlo (pop A, multiplier 2, TL 11) has 1000 factor SDB fleet plus its fleet (a BatDron, a CruDron, an AsDron). This SDB is enought keep a zho fleet away from landing its troops (wich, BTW should defeat TL 11 7500 division equivalents to occupy the planet).

Seeing that, I'm not sure those figures on TCS and S are as bad...

Anyway, returning to the thread subject, I think the point is done: don't mess with autorities on HiPop HiTech planets, and less so with the ship players are likely to have.
 
Last edited:
Hans: I know how that Striker section reads. And the TCS section too. And we both know Marc and Frank were thinking local small campaigns for gaming purposes, not an economic simulation across 25 sectors.
It's not an economic simulation across 25 sectors, Don. It's an utterly basic rule of thumb across all universes[*]. Societies really can afford to spend somewhere around 10% of GWP on their militaries (more in the short run). It will cause them hardship, but they can do it. IIRC the US's military budget reached eight point something during the Cold War. And neighboring hostile empires of comparable size really are seen as genuine threats.

[*] All plausible universes, anyway.​


Hans
 
That is because you haven't worked these types of military budgets in real life.
No, it's because I noticed that Traveller spaceships are orders of magnitude more expensive per crewman than 20th Century wet navy ships. I'm perfectly aware that personnel cost is a major factor in 20th Century navies. But they're not going to be nearly as big a factor relative to ships that cost as much as Traveller starships do.


Hans
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, they also fit (more or less -- same order of magnitude, anyway) with the canonical figures for the Imperial Navy in MT:Rebellion Sourcebook.

Isn't that a kind of elliptical arguement given that the figures cited there were probably heavily influenced by CT in the first place?
 
Back
Top