OTU Only: T5SS Semi-Official Thread
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
Of course it can. As long as you account for the changes caused by the Divergence Point there's no reason why it can't be used as canon. (Whether it IS use is up to Marc Miller).
For example, if BtC mentions a Vice Admiral Vrin Tildaalin (Ret), IN, SEH, MGC with Swords and Diamonds and says that Norris promoted him from Commodore to Vice Admiral during the 5FW and gave him control of the Regina Fleet, you can take that as evidence for the existence of a Commodore Vrin Tildaalin during the 5FW not only in the GTU but in the OTU as well. And the existence of Vrin Tildaalin (captain or commodore as the case might be) in 1105.
Hans
OK, but no Vice Admiral's in the OTU? Should it not be Fleet Admiral? Or is it a local rank for the commander of the Regina planetary navy?
Regards
David
The rules don't have rear and vice admirals, but CT setting canon has several and BtC took its cue from that. There are a couple of ways to explain their existence. MT claimed that rear and vice admiral were alternate terms for fleet and sector admirals, but that doesn't work, because the vice admirals had jobs that were clearly below the scope of sector admirals (Vice Admiral Elphonstone commanded a smaller-than-a-fleet task force with two or three squadrons and there was mention of a vice admiral commanding a naval base in Five Sisters).
IMTU I solve it by interpolating rear, vice, and (just plain) admirals as O8, O9, and O10, making fleet, force, sector and grand admirals O11, O12, O13, and O14. (IMTU a 'fleet' is all ships stationed in one system and a 'force' (Fleet/Army Force) is all fleet and army units stationed in a subsector (canon's 'numbered fleet'). I do that because I do NOT believe in a system that makes Grand Admirals (of which there are just a handful at the very top of the entire Imperium level) the rank-equivalent of army generals (of which there can be dozens in a single star system).
For the OTU I've come up with an explanation that is pretty ugly, but does work: 'rear admiral' is an alternate title for junior fleet admirals, 'vice admiral' for medium-level fleet admirals, and 'fleet admiral' is normally only used for senior fleet admirals. Think of them as 'Fleet Admiral (Lower Third), Fleet Admiral (Middle Third), and Fleet Admiral (Upper Third)1.
1 Though the proportions would be more like 6/10, 3/10, and 1/10 than 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3.
(But with historical precedence (sort of)).Hans
Alell
Hi Don,
Getting back to the original subject, I'm not happy with the multiplication of RU's by efficiency giving 15/36 worlds negative output.
In the case of Red zoned Algine, they would have to solve their problems pdq, or die out.
Someone suggested the efficiency calculation should be 1 + or - 0.1x flux.
Kind Regards
David
Hi Don,
Getting back to the original subject, I'm not happy with the multiplication of RU's by efficiency giving 15/36 worlds negative output.
In the case of Red zoned Algine, they would have to solve their problems pdq, or die out.
Someone suggested the efficiency calculation should be 1 + or - 0.1x flux.
Kind Regards
David
Last edited:
Thanks Hans,
It makes sense for some sort of 'easy' way to distinguish relative seniority between admiral's, given it's importance in 5FW.
Kind Regards
David
Oops! I'd forgotten that we were posting in a "Hey Don, look at this!" thread already. Sorry about that.
Indeed. If I wasn't such a polite person I would characterize it as stark lunacy. As it is, I'll just say that it just plain won't work. The setting that application of this mechanic will generate will simply be impossible to make sense of. And I state that as an objective fact, not just an opinion.
Algine, not Alell.
Hans
Basically that is the way I see it as well (although I usually just imagine Sector Admiral as O11 and Grand Admiral as O12). O8-O10 (Rear-/Vice-/Fleet-) then become the various postings for the canonical "O8 Admirals". I imagine Rear Admirals (O8) as primarily Admirals on Staff, seconds-in-command, and heads of Navy Branches, or Special Task Force Commanders. Vice-Admirals (O9) and "Fleet" Admirals (O10) are the typical Fleet Commanders of a Subsector, depending on size.
(This has the added side-benefit of reducing the number of High-Ranking Sector+ Admirals generated during CharGen for those who remain in CharGen for a long period).
As far as Armies are concerned, at ranks above General (O10), there are always the possibilities of Field Marshal, Vice-Marshal, and Grand Marshal (Sector-Level).
Thank you,
I've edited the name in the text, but it wouldn't let me edit the title, how did I get those worlds mixed up?
Regards
David
Algine
I did a little more research and there are 20 red zoned worlds with negative RU's. I can understand the 10 Amber zoned ones and 10 colonies to a certain extent, as there is presumably a reason they are amber zoned and colonies and being dependant on external aid is as good a reason as any.
If Marc was selling the patent cards Count Fornice would be tons more valuable than Count Rethe, (apologies if anyone has these titles).
Kind Regards
David
I did a little more research and there are 20 red zoned worlds with negative RU's. I can understand the 10 Amber zoned ones and 10 colonies to a certain extent, as there is presumably a reason they are amber zoned and colonies and being dependant on external aid is as good a reason as any.
If Marc was selling the patent cards Count Fornice would be tons more valuable than Count Rethe, (apologies if anyone has these titles).
Kind Regards
David
It's on the "Marc List", but Personal Combat comes way before explaining negative RUs.
Right now, I'm using negative RUs as the cost for activating the system during wartime (ie, the side "defending" has to pay the cost for occupation. So a "rat bastard" Imperial commander is likely not to waste too many resources activating negative systems, and an attacking Zhodani isn't likely to waste any resources seizing those systems.
But if they want to, there's that "cost".
That's just Don talking, no Marc details there.
I know RUs comes from the Imperium/Dark Nebula/5FW board games, and I keep meaning to dig into that, but there's all this other stuff to do.
Right now, I'm using negative RUs as the cost for activating the system during wartime (ie, the side "defending" has to pay the cost for occupation. So a "rat bastard" Imperial commander is likely not to waste too many resources activating negative systems, and an attacking Zhodani isn't likely to waste any resources seizing those systems.
But if they want to, there's that "cost".
That's just Don talking, no Marc details there.
I know RUs comes from the Imperium/Dark Nebula/5FW board games, and I keep meaning to dig into that, but there's all this other stuff to do.
Hi Don,
Thanks, it's not 5FW, but I think Imperium used them (I no longer have the game).
My concern is the amount of negative worlds and the scouts condemning so many minor races to extinction, it doesn't seem very scout-ish, when the red zone is supposed to protect their development.
I didn't check company worlds, but it occurred to me a company would write so worlds off (long term it would be forced to).
Regards
David
Imperium did use RUs, but it was a very basic mechanic with budgets in the low double digits at most. I think the most direct ancestor is Pocket Empires.
The thing is, if RUs are what governments use to pay for naval squadrons, then a world that produces, say, 300 RUs is actually producing 10,000 RUs and then spending 9,700 RUs on frivolities like food, shelter and consumer goods. Or rather, it produces 10,000 RUs, then the government collects 300 RUs in military taxes, THEN they spend the rest on food, shelter, and consumer goods.
Similarily, a world that produces -300 RU actually produces X RUs, get taxed a portion of that for military purposes, spends the rest and then borrows 300 RUs and spends that too. (And there's a good chance that it's the government borrowing those RUs to buy more military stuff :devil
.Redzoned worlds is an extreme example because no one is ALLOWED to lend them money, but any world with a weak economy is unlikely to be able to borrow large sums of money. To borrow hundreds of RUs worth, you need the kind of economy that inspires confidence that you'll be able to pay them back eventually, so your negative RU producers are apt to be important worlds. Not that that means they don't spend money on the military since, as I pointed out above, the government collects military taxes first.
There are worlds that would require RUs spent on them, but in neither the number (15/36 :nonono
nor on the scale (hundreds of RUs :nonono the rules seem to produce.The chief RU sinks are military outposts and scientific outposts. But how many RUs would you spend on a scientific outpost? I'm not sure just how much money one RU represents, but my guess would be that scientific outposts are cheap compared to planetary military budgets.
Other outposts tend to produce more than they consume. That's sort of the point with mining outposts and trade outposts.
Then there are recently established colonies and failing colonies. Yes, they could be RU sinks. But colonies tend to be small (low-madium populations) and those paid for by the Imperium are few.
Hans
There are worlds that would require RUs spent on them, but in neither the number (15/36 :nonono
I've been reading Hard Times and I'm thinking the negative RU's are there to aid in the rapid collapse of the Imperium.
So I'm thinking of modifying your system somewhat:
0 = 75% (rather than 100%)
-1 = 50%
-2 = 25%
-3 = -25%
-4 = -50%
-5 = -100%
Which would give 6/36 with negatives, (which is still rather high compared to Earth), but the numbers would be a lot smaller. I'd still manually adjust most red zones, research stations and possibly other special cases.
What do you think?
Regards
David
Last edited:
I didn't realize that HT had RUs.
It depends to some extent on just what RUs represent. If, as I've gotten the second-hand impression it is, it's what governments have to spend on militaries and special projects, then I think worlds with negative RUs would be fairly rare (and not to be identified randomly) and the numbers of RUs involved mostly insignificant (not worth identifying in the first place). I think low-population worlds should be considered part of larger neighboring economies (whether formally or informally) and ignored. I think projects like upstart colonies and naval bases should be budgeted for explicitly rather than covered in the RU calculations (example: small-population world with military base doesn't have -10 RU; it has +2 RU and the Imperium pays 12 RU for the base).
Hans
Last edited:
It doesn't, but it helps to explain the collapse if 42% of worlds need external finance to survive.
Given the 3I is fairly static you would have though most worlds would be capable of providing for themselves.
I was assuming RU's were equivalent to GWP, or at lease balance of trade, if it's just Government spending, well we seem to have been running a deficit all my life.
Regards
David
I disagree. An explanation that in itself doesn't work won't work to explain anything else.
Example: It would help explaining worlds with too small diameters having breathable air if gravity allowed small worlds to retain more air.
I not only would have thought it, I do think it. Indeed, I'm so convinced of it that I'm willing to state it as a fact rather than just my opinion.
Anybody with a T5 book that will quote us the definition of RU?
Hans
http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Resource_Unit
While the text in the book is more game oriented, it says the same thing. "Resource Units are relative values". If world A has RU 100, world B has RU 50, world A has "twice" the economy of world B.
I find every aspect of the math and description of RU's to be so ugly I otherwise ignore them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
