Agreed.
They are no more outposts than Norfolk Va. to the US. They reside inside the I3. They cannot maintain TL15 ships if they are working and producing at TL9. We are missing obvious facts that are unwritten.
Right. They are outposts inside the Imperium. Outposts where people come to do a job and then go home again (as opposed to colonies where people come to build viable societies and mainworlds where people are born into viable societies). Outposts where most or all equipment is imported from a mainworld rather than manufactured locally.
Which is why I submit that they should be working and producing at TL15 using imported TL15 parts. Which would make their working TL 15 (and their maximum sustainable TL 0 -- if a depot was cut off from its supply lines, it would not be able to maintain any technology at all once its stock of spare parts ran out -- well, the now-suddenly-local population might be able to gear down to somewere in the upper low tech to lower mid tech range).
Evidently we did not reach a consensus.
GF has people spending their lives at Depots, no mention of parts only assembly which just would not make sense. You're trying to make the present UWP meet the explanation. I never thought that is the correct approach.
More silliness from GFl then. That's not how military bases work. You are born, you grow up, you enter the Navy, the Navy ships you to a base, you work on the base, you retire from the Navy, the Navy ships you home. (That, incidentally, is what makes the people on the base transients.)
A military base with no one but transients has no local civilian society to dig ores, smelt alloys, manufacture parts, grow food, run schools, etc., etc., etc..
I am? I thought I was advocating changing the UWPs of the depots that didn't make sense. Up the TL, add red zone, change starport to Class X, that sort of thing.
Whereas I've never thought that it made sense to roll up each UWP in isolation without taking the surrounding worlds and the history of the region into account and adjusting to match.
I don't. My depots are strong TL15 bases designed to support strong fleets. I don't know how you arrive at the opposite conclusion.
It's not a base, its an interstellar depot. They can survive many years undersiege without support. GF did a very good job. Earth bases today are not designed for this type of environment and situation. Traveller goes back to the age of sail and castles not WWII.
An Imperial Depot is a base whose primary function is being a depot. Or rather, from the description it's a base whose primary function is something other than being a depot, but they're also depots and for some reason they are referred to according to that function.
They can survive for as long as their store of supplies lasts out. How long that is depends on how big the store is, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is a base.
What interpretation? That it is a mistake to refuse to change selected bits of selected UWPs in order to conform better with the setting?
What is? To say "There are no redzoned TL15 worlds in this sector, so this sector's depot will have to be a TL9 installation that allows civilian traffic to freely avail themselves of the facilities"? Because I think that doing so is a mistake not an opportunity.
But at least we seem to have reached the point where those UWPs are wrong before we separated.
And it is documented that a sector fleet consists of the numbered fleets stationed in its sector. What's your point? That your canon is better then my canon? I dispute that.
Well, if I had been in that discussion, I would have said "If only there were several hundred of them instead of only 15. Fortunately there must be hundreds and hundreds of Chrysanthemums and Fer-de-Lances and various other escort classes, and they're all a match for the canonical Vargr corsair."
There's a half-page description of naval depots on p. 7 of Fighting Ships. The most recent set of revisions to the wiki articles introduced a number of non-canon items to the canon part of the text, but I can quote you the correct text if you like.
You can see that by pressing the 'View history' button at the top of each page.
Yes, an article should ideally be an impartial synthesis of all available information1. But at least a straight copy of the text means that it hasn't been modified to serve the agenda of any particular person.
Yes, someone with access to all the texts should do a revision, being careful to keep his own theories out of the canon portion of the article and to give credit to all the canon sources. Personal interpretations really belong in the non-canon part of the article. And discussions belong on the discussion page, not in the non-canon part of the article.
I can't dismiss them without reason. Just when they make statements that are self-contradictory or contradict other canonical passages or real life. Most recently I dismissed GFL's2 statement that people spent their entire life in depots on the grounds that depots are bases and people don't spend their entire lives on bases.
We never had the authority to resolve canon problems. What we might have been able to was to reach a consensus, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Fighting Ships, not Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium.
Is the passage small enough to quote? Perhaps just the part that adds to the passage in FS?
There's a half-page description of naval depots on p. 7 of Fighting Ships. The most recent set of revisions to the wiki articles introduced a number of non-canon items to the canon part of the text, but I can quote you the correct text if you like.
You can see that by pressing the 'View history' button at the top of each page.
Yes, an article should ideally be an impartial synthesis of all available information1. But at least a straight copy of the text means that it hasn't been modified to serve the agenda of any particular person.
Fortunately, it's perfectly easy to revert to a previous version. Though as it's just as easy to restore the revised text, the result can be a futile tug-of-war between two passionate contributors that doesn't resolve anything. At which point the administrator is forced to step in and make a decision.1 Although that runs inot problems when the passages contradict each other.
Yes, someone with access to all the texts should do a revision, being careful to keep his own theories out of the canon portion of the article and to give credit to all the canon sources. Personal interpretations really belong in the non-canon part of the article. And discussions belong on the discussion page, not in the non-canon part of the article.
I can't dismiss them without reason. Just when they make statements that are self-contradictory or contradict other canonical passages or real life. Most recently I dismissed GFL's2 statement that people spent their entire life in depots on the grounds that depots are bases and people don't spend their entire lives on bases.
I am handicapped by not having GFL or SF, which means I have to rely on second-hand paraphrases. For all I know there are ways to reconcile (at least some of) GFL's statements. It would be most helpful if you'd quote the passages you bring up to support your view.2 'GF' is also used to refer to Ground Forces. It would be best to chose an abbreviation that is unambiguous. I'd suggest GFL for Grand Fleet and GFO for Ground Forces. Or perhaps GRA and GRO would be better?
Unless a depot has a civilian population in the hundreds of millions, it's not going to be able to support on its own a naval base as powerful as you claim a depot is.
We never had the authority to resolve canon problems. What we might have been able to was to reach a consensus, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
I would like to point out that I didn't start the latest go-around, unless you somehow blame me for speaking up when you make a statement with which I disagree. If you think further discussion on the subject is futile, I suggest you consider not discussing it any further.
That's just what I've been doing all along.
Hans
Ah yes. The "the UWP is correct, it just doesn't mean what it looks like it says" explanation.
But they're not stated as having a huge civilian population to support the base.
The default year for wiki articles is 1116-1117 -- just before the Rebellion begins. Other eras are supposed to be clearly marked. Not all contributors are aware of that. There are a lot of Rebellion-era entries in particular that doesn't conform to the standard.
I make an effort to mark what little i have time to work on. Clearly, it needs to be identified.
Which MgT work?
The original Depot material is in Fighting Ships (Supplement 9). The Depot material in Rebellion Sourcebook is under GDW copyright. So is MTJ#3, which means that Rapid Repo is also under GDW copyright1.
