The Imperial Corridor Fleet

[savage]

I've been told that there is a 10,000T escort mentioned in FSotSI. Based on the quote above, I submit that an escort that size would be atypical. Which is fine by me, because I'm eager to minimize the damage done by the line that says that combat vessels include "some escorts". I think that to count as a combat vessel, an escort has to be atypically large and also that there aren't very many of those overlarge escorts.

Hans

Yes there are Escort Destroyers in FSotSI, which is canon. I really think the differentiation lies in the type of vessel and the rest is best practise.
The really culprit is probably CT:TCS. Spinal Mounted vessels would be something like, capital warships and everything else is an escort. We step back to the "age of sail". if you cannot stand on the line your an escort.

5 Sisters Tigresses a publicity stunt. I think not.
1. An advancement in a possibly dangerous sophont race is a good reason.
2. Making a statement to the Aslan and Zho would be a better reason.

If FSotSI is broken fine. I was looking at the MT: errata thread yesterday. I see that Rebellion ships we're fixed at some point, but SFotSI have yet to be touched after 10 years of the thread. I was never in the MT bandwagon (leaning more to TNE) but perhaps it's the best fallback version due to the errata. Still other than T20 we don't see a robust line of non-MT warships to fill those shipyards in Corridor.

 

[savage]

Hmmm, the TRUE information must be available somewhere, if it's on a computer it can be hacked, if it's on paper it can be stolen (or copied)
and if it's in someone's mind it can be mind probed (psionically or mechanically).

Whilst I can understand one set of info for player's, the GM's info should be available somewhere.

Kind Regards

David

Funny David. :rofl:
Yeah it's somewhere. I've been going through the Fleet layout and fixing it. This is a larger initiative than i originally thought. I'm finding the unwritten need for other fleets. Remember, Fleets can have far less than the estimated number of ships Rancke has proposed.

 

[rancke]

Yes there are Escort Destroyers in FSotSI, which is canon. I really think the differentiation lies in the type of vessel and the rest is best practise.

If it wasn't canon it wouldn't be a concern. As for the differentiation, it is expressely stated in Fighting Ships. Escorts are "small ships of up to 5000 tons...". Cruisers are "the smallest ships to carry the large spinal weapons needed to cause serious damage to a large armored ship". What differentiates cruisers from battleships is that cruisers are too frail to stand in the line of battle and battleships are tough enough to stand in the line of battle.

The really culprit is probably CT:TCS. Spinal Mounted vessels would be something like, capital warships and everything else is an escort. We step back to the "age of sail". if you cannot stand on the line your an escort.

The "culprit" is FS. Part of the definition of an escorts is that it is 5000 tons or less. The larger-than-5000T escorts of FSotSI are either a mistake (they don't exist at all) or an exception to the general rule too insignificant to mention in the definition (My preferred solution).

5 Sisters Tigresses a publicity stunt. I think not.
1. An advancement in a possibly dangerous sophont race is a good reason.

The Imperium isn't taking the interdict seriously enough for that. Droyne from Andor are allowed to leave the system and roam about in a free trader. Outsiders are granted leave to visit Andor so frequently that on one occasion three left on the same day.

2. Making a statement to the Aslan and Zho would be a better reason.

By publicity stunt I meant making a statement. According to the color text in FS, "several individual Tigresses have been deployed among the worlds of the Five Sisters subsector to enforce the amber [sic] zone blockade of Candory and Andor." Which is ludicrosly inefficient if the purpose is to enforce the blockade (a Tigress stationed in the Andor system would be quite effective, but stationed at neighboring systems they're both overkill and pretty useless). If the purpose is to send a message ("Stay away; we mean it!") then they make more sense.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Yeah it's somewhere. I've been going through the Fleet layout and fixing it. This is a larger initiative than i originally thought. I'm finding the unwritten need for other fleets. Remember, Fleets can have far less than the estimated number of ships Rancke has proposed.

Only if you ignore the statements made in Rebellion Sourcebook.

Some fleets may indeed have fewer ships that the averages I mentioned. But only if some other fleets have correspondingly more ships. That's what 'average' means.


Hans

 

[savage]

Only if you ignore the statements made in Rebellion Sourcebook.

Some fleets may indeed have fewer ships that the averages I mentioned. But only if some other fleets have correspondingly more ships. That's what 'average' means.



Hans

I did not ignore it. Nor did I suggest that some fleets have more ships. Welcome to Corridor, right? I only suggest that there are not enough fleets in Rebellion sourcebook and that some fleets do not need as many ships as others.:CoW: I'm actually looking closely at the Rebellion sourcebook to analyze the fleet layout (as mentioned).

 

[rancke]

I did not ignore it.

Then you have to fit about 1000 capital ships (combat vessels) per sector into the fleets. I'm actually going with the lower of the two possible interpretations (1000 per sector of 16 subsectors or 62½ per subsector instead of 1000 per sector). A total of about 20,000 combat vessels Imperium-wide rather than 28,000.

Nor did I suggest that some fleets have more ships.

No, I pointed that out as a logical consequence of having fewer than the average in some fleets. By the very nature of averages, that can only happen if there are fleets with correspondingly more ships.

Welcome to Corridor, right? I only suggest that there are not enough fleets in Rebellion sourcebook and that some fleets do not need as many ships as others.

Why wouldn't there be enough fleets in RbS?


Hans

 

[savage]

The "culprit" is FS. Part of the definition of an escorts is that it is 5000 tons or less. The larger-than-5000T escorts of FSotSI are either a mistake (they don't exist at all) or an exception to the general rule too insignificant to mention in the definition (My preferred solution).


Hans

Another point Hans. The US Congress limited the amount of cruisers the navy could build (I think it was in the 80s). The Navy wanted more cruisers, so they built tougher destroyers (Spruance...etc).

We are going between two systems CT and MT. We need to be careful not to treat them as equals and not to assume things don't change. The 1960s and 1980s brought different people into power. The same thing has happened in Traveller between the 5th Frontier War and Rebellion. I take the text as it is, mistakes and all. I try to adjust the mistakes. For example, nicknaming Escort Destroyers as Rebellion Destroyers.

 

[savage]

Then you have to fit about 1000 capital ships (combat vessels) per sector into the fleets. I'm actually going with the lower of the two possible interpretations (1000 per sector of 16 subsectors or 62½ per subsector instead of 1000 per sector). A total of about 20,000 combat vessels Imperium-wide rather than 28,000.

To have the Rebellion, as written, one might need 28+k ships.
The US was building a ship a day during WWII. What's the max output of 3I? I'd suspect some similar number. Then again if your stat is adequate I have 8,000 ships for incorrectly documented fleets in RbS not including the Reserves/Colonials I assume.

Why wouldn't there be enough fleets in RbS?
Hans

Because, writer's did not check their facts. And Marc doesn't have the time to evaluate every little fact: subsectors without fleets, fleet allotments not counted, and as pointed out earlier in the thread incorrect numbering. :CoW:

If Core and Corridor have 20 fleets then what else is wrong. Or are some fleets misnamed and should be squadrons in other sources. I'm doing a revision of the Fleet layout sheet. I don't know if I can publish it, but i could summarize.

 

[rancke]

Another point Hans. The US Congress limited the amount of cruisers the navy could build (I think it was in the 80s). The Navy wanted more cruisers, so they built tougher destroyers (Spruance...etc).

What's the point?

We are going between two systems CT and MT. We need to be careful not to treat them as equals and not to assume things don't change. The 1960s and 1980s brought different people into power. The same thing has happened in Traveller between the 5th Frontier War and Rebellion.

We also need to consider that changes take time and that not all changes are equally likely. In fact, you need to refute my arguments with specific arguments not vague general statements. I'm not treating CT setting information and MT setting information as equals. I weigh the statements carefully against each other and go with the interpretation that IMO makes for the most self-consistent setting.

I take the text as it is, mistakes and all. I try to adjust the mistakes.

So do I.

To have the Rebellion, as written, one might need 28+k ships.

I don't see why, but if that was true, my numbers should be 40% higher than they are.

The US was building a ship a day during WWII. What's the max output of 3I? I'd suspect some similar number. Then again if your stat is adequate I have 8,000 ships for incorrectly documented fleets in RbS not including the Reserves/Colonials I assume.

Actually, what you have is two mutually contradictory statements, both from RbS. A fleet is said to have 8-10 squadrons of 6-8 ships. You're not going to get 28,000 ships from 320 fleets that averages 63 ships. OTOH, the statement dovetails quite nicely with the 20,000 ship figure.

Why wouldn't there be enough fleets in RbS?

Because, writer's did not check their facts. And Marc doesn't have the time to evaluate every little fact: subsectors without fleets, fleet allotments not counted, and as pointed out earlier in the thread incorrect numbering.

No, I mean, why do you think there aren't enough fleets in RbS?

If Core and Corridor have 20 fleets then what else is wrong?

What is wrong with Core and Corridor having 20 fleets?


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Every real ship ever built has also had problems. I prefer coming up with work arounds. Some are hard to overlook like the 800dt Merc Cruiser plans. The T4 FS seems worst.

Correct me if I'm wrong (not up to date with modern ship building), but don't even ships of the same class have slightly different dimensions and armaments?

Regards

David

 

[Dagrill]

Another point Hans. The US Congress limited the amount of cruisers the navy could build (I think it was in the 80s). The Navy wanted more cruisers, so they built tougher destroyers (Spruance...etc).

We are going between two systems CT and MT. We need to be careful not to treat them as equals and not to assume things don't change. The 1960s and 1980s brought different people into power. The same thing has happened in Traveller between the 5th Frontier War and Rebellion. I take the text as it is, mistakes and all. I try to adjust the mistakes. For example, nicknaming Escort Destroyers as Rebellion Destroyers.

A similar thing happened in the RN with the Invincible class Carriers, they were originally called Through Deck Cruisers, then Helicopter Carriers and with the addition of a ramp VTOL carriers.

Rebellion Destroyers makes me think of a million ton, planet busting dreadnaught for some reason ;-)

I go with Destroyer Leader or Escort Leader for ships in the 6-15kt range & use them as the Flagship for Escort Squadrons,

Regards

David

 

[Dagrill]

Yeah it's somewhere. I've been going through the Fleet layout and fixing it. This is a larger initiative than i originally thought. I'm finding the unwritten need for other fleets. Remember, Fleets can have far less than the estimated number of ships Rancke has proposed.

I'd like to see your layout when you finish it please.

Technically speaking a Fleet could have only 2 squadrons, I'm thinking 10 is pretty much the upper limit for C&C purposes, although maybe future technology facilitates co-ordination of greater numbers of ships

Regards

David

 

[savage]

Correct me if I'm wrong (not up to date with modern ship building), but don't even ships of the same class have slightly different dimensions and armaments?

Regards

David

There are always deviations. Improvements in some cases.

 

[savage]

A similar thing happened in the RN with the Invincible class Carriers, they were originally called Through Deck Cruisers, then Helicopter Carriers and with the addition of a ramp VTOL carriers.

Rebellion Destroyers makes me think of a million ton, planet busting dreadnaught for some reason ;-)

I go with Destroyer Leader or Escort Leader for ships in the 6-15kt range & use them as the Flagship for Escort Squadrons,

Regards

David

Escort Leader is nice but I'm thinking slang the historians "that survived" use to describe the hulks of the Rebellion period. The problem is time. These should would be coming off the assembly lines after 36 months. The CT ships would be virtually exhausted or sent in for refit when Virus hit. I think the escort destroyers would have seen the worst of it.

Ships are what Traveller is about and they've always been the biggest problem. I never analyzed the MT FSotSI flaws but I suppose I should.

 

[Drakon]

I'd like to see your layout when you finish it please.

Technically speaking a Fleet could have only 2 squadrons, I'm thinking 10 is pretty much the upper limit for C&C purposes, although maybe future technology facilitates co-ordination of greater numbers of ships

Regards

David

You are not the only one. I still do not feel I understand what ships would be in the 60th and 105th fleets. Batrons and Crusrons are okay, even Desrons, but what actual ships are being used in 1105-1116, I am still fuzzy on. What class of Battleships, cruisers and destroyers are available? All I can safely say is we are not talking Plankwells.

 

[savage]

You are not the only one. I still do not feel I understand what ships would be in the 60th and 105th fleets. Batrons and Crusrons are okay, even Desrons, but what actual ships are being used in 1105-1116, I am still fuzzy on. What class of Battleships, cruisers and destroyers are available? All I can safely say is we are not talking Plankwells.

Kaasu, Depot may very well have Plankwells but not Lemish.
I have been working through 3I fleets first. I already sent my assessment for Lemish fleet makeup. We do need to understand and FSotSI issues.

There could be an assessment for every version of Traveller. That is the confusion. I can also point out that there are many freely, avaiable designs (typically no deckplans) on the web. I tried to find and incorporate them but...it can be trying.

 

[Dagrill]

You are not the only one. I still do not feel I understand what ships would be in the 60th and 105th fleets. Batrons and Crusrons are okay, even Desrons, but what actual ships are being used in 1105-1116, I am still fuzzy on. What class of Battleships, cruisers and destroyers are available? All I can safely say is we are not talking Plankwells.

I'd go with the following:
1 Batron of Kokirrak (the ability to carry 2,000 troops each makes them good for anti-Vargr work)
1 Ron of Wind class Strike Carrier & 1 Ron of Arakoine Strike cruisers - give good strike power against the Vargr worlds
2 Rons of Gionetti Light Cruisers for patrol and strikes on Vargr worlds
1 Ron of Ghalalk CA to support the BatRon
That's only 6 and I'd add at least 1 TanRon & an Assault Ron, in case a Vargr world needs serious punishment

I've checked FS & the Midu Agashaam are likely to be with deployed with the
Corridor Battle Fleet, so I'd give you 5 Rons of Fleet Escorts, and/or Destroyer Escorts + couriers & smaller escorts, I don't see any less being allocated.

I think the Naadi sub-sector comes under Lemish, so I'd give 1 Fleet an additional Gionetti Ron to patrol there based on Hishumaki.

Kind Regards

David

 

[savage]

I'd go with the following:
1 Batron of Kokirrak (the ability to carry 2,000 troops each makes them good for anti-Vargr work)
1 Ron of Wind class Strike Carrier & 1 Ron of Arakoine Strike cruisers - give good strike power against the Vargr worlds
2 Rons of Gionetti Light Cruisers for patrol and strikes on Vargr worlds
1 Ron of Ghalalk CA to support the BatRon
That's only 6 and I'd add at least 1 TanRon & an Assault Ron, in case a Vargr world needs serious punishment

I've checked FS & the Midu Agashaam are likely to be with deployed with the
Corridor Battle Fleet, so I'd give you 5 Rons of Fleet Escorts, and/or Destroyer Escorts + couriers & smaller escorts, I don't see any less being allocated.

I think the Naadi sub-sector comes under Lemish, so I'd give 1 Fleet an additional Gionetti Ron to patrol there based on Hishumaki.

Kind Regards

David

This is part of the CT problem. Those are all TL15 which is why i didn't suggest them. MT FSotSI gives the opportunity to put similar designs/different TL in the appropriate starport. Lemish is TL12. It cannot support any of these vessels on a significant scale.

 

[Vladika]

This both is and has been an interesting thread.

I am however curious if there has been any agreement, or consensus, on anything at all? If so, what?

 

[savage]

This both is and has been an interesting thread.

I am however curious if there has been any agreement, or consensus, on anything at all? If so, what?

I think it has been an educational thread. Members have shared information about view points of fleets and some of the weaknesses in the story line.
If anything the level of knowledge about the Corridor sector has been increased.

1. Possible reasons for successful attack by Vargr
2. Issues with the Lucan fleet call and workarounds
3. Fleets types, sizes, numbers and what is needed
4. Ship types and concerns with different systems

All of this focused on a sector, I thought I was the only one interested in.