The Imperial Corridor Fleet

[rancke]

Everyone knows the canon basis. No reason to reiterate it.

I felt there was a reason. It's a secondary point though (which is why I put it in parenthesises).

Which precedence are you basing your entire argument on?

I'm not making any argument. You made what appeared to be a statement of fact. I asked you for evidence that this statement was accurate. If all you have is your unsupported opinion then your statement is not a fact.

How about if I make a statement of fact:

The map in Rebellion shows accurate fleet layouts. Evidence: Rebellion is canon, it is possible to explain duplicate and missing fleet numbers, and there is no contradictory information elsewhere in canon.


Hans

 

[savage]

I felt there was a reason. It's a secondary point though (which is why I put it in parenthesises).


I'm not making any argument. You made what appeared to be a statement of fact. I asked you for evidence that this statement was accurate. If all you have is your unsupported opinion then your statement is not a fact.

How about if I make a statement of fact:

The map in Rebellion shows accurate fleet layouts. Evidence: Rebellion is canon, it is possible to explain duplicate and missing fleet numbers, and there is no contradictory information elsewhere in canon.


Hans

Ship designs that are incorrect, depots missing or in the wrong location...the book is riddled with "oops". Basically, that argument works both directions.
Duplicate fleet numbers do not make sense based on naval doctrine in several books.

 

[Carlobrand]

Ship designs that are incorrect, depots missing or in the wrong location...the book is riddled with "oops". Basically, that argument works both directions.
Duplicate fleet numbers do not make sense based on naval doctrine in several books.

Which duplicate fleet numbers?

 

[rancke]

Ship designs that are incorrect, depots missing or in the wrong location...the book is riddled with "oops". Basically, that argument works both directions.

No, it doesn't. The canon information that is self-contradictory or contradicts other bits of canon is suspect. The canon information that neither contradicts itself nor other bits of canon is assumed to be accurate until and unless TPTB retcons it.

Duplicate fleet numbers do not make sense based on naval doctrine in several books.

What naval doctrine are you talking about and by what logic does it cause duplicate fleet numbers to not make sense?


Hans

 

[savage]

Which duplicate fleet numbers?

See the DonM document "Megatraveller threads" evaluating corrections in various MT documents.

IMO, I can interpret some of the fleet number information as "unavailable to the Admiralty" or Top Secret at the time of the numbered fleet layout. :CoW:

Since, the 3I Navy moves ships, but typically does not need to move fleets (only in urgent combat and then reasonable distance). They do, however, establish fleets without ships and combatants, if needed.

I could go on...or just interpret my view of the 3I navy, for my digestion and the digestion of any "friends" who share my opinion.

 

[rancke]

Which duplicate fleet numbers?

Five of the fleet numbers are duplicated, one is triplicated. Some of the fleet numbers are missing.


Hans

 

[rancke]

IMO, I can interpret some of the fleet number information as "unavailable to the Admiralty" or Top Secret at the time of the numbered fleet layout. :CoW:

I can't. The information is presented in authorial voice not as viewpoint writing.

Since, the 3I Navy moves ships, but typically does not need to move fleets (only in urgent combat and then reasonable distance). They do, however, establish fleets without ships and combatants, if needed.

There is one canonical example of fleets being reorganized -- following the 5FW. It's not an unreasonable guess that there was a massive reorganization after the Civil War was over, nor that there could have been other shuffles affecting just parts of the Imperium.

The theory that fleets have remained in the subsector where they were first deployed for the rest of the Imperium's history is... not tenable (except for a small handful of them, such as Fleets 1 to 4).


Hans

 

[savage]

The theory that fleets have remained in the subsector where they were first deployed for the rest of the Imperium's history is... not tenable (except for a small handful of them, such as Fleets 1 to 4).


Hans

In general, I might agree. However, there is no canon argument to the contrary. The logic of deploying one fleet in 2 sectors far apart is also not logical.

 

[rancke]

In general, I might agree. However, there is no canon argument to the contrary.

I disagree. If fleets stayed in their original subsector throughout history, the first score of fleets would be clustered in Core Sector with a few more in and around Vland subsector. This is not the case. Ergo some of the first 20-30 fleets have been moved. Similar arguments can be made for fleets raised over the years until their number reached 320.

The logic of deploying one fleet in 2 sectors far apart is also not logical.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the same fleet is deployed in two sectors far apart. I know I'm not. I'm suggesting that there are several cases of two fleets with the same number and one case of three fleets with the same number. Just as the Roman Empire had duplicate legion numbers. (Not all of them were active at the same time, but some were. In 68 AD there were six legions numbered I; one was disbanded in 69 and one in 70, but the other four co-existed for centuries.)


Hans

 

[savage]

I disagree. If fleets stayed in their original subsector throughout history, the first score of fleets would be clustered in Core Sector with a few more in and around Vland subsector. This is not the case. Ergo some of the first 20-30 fleets have been moved. Similar arguments can be made for fleets raised over the years until their number reached 320.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that the same fleet is deployed in two sectors far apart. I know I'm not. I'm suggesting that there are several cases of two fleets with the same number and one case of three fleets with the same number. ...

I would agree that military units get moved. That they are eventually replaced by standing up new units. That is my point. Although, the 320 number is canon there are other numbers that can make sense. It's all perspective. There is no reason to track a unit in 2 locations. 3I Admiralty (per canon) moves ships. If all the ships move, then the FLT is moved. If not then a new fleet is born. That is also supported in canon.

No news here...my research continues.

 

[Vladika]

3I Admiralty (per canon) moves ships. If all the ships move, then the FLT is moved. If not then a new fleet is born. That is also supported in canon.

For what it's worth, that's the US Navy way. The 4th Fleet was reactivated in the Caribbean.

On 1 July 2008, the Navy re-established the United States Fourth Fleet, based at Naval Station Mayport in Jacksonville, Florida, which then assumed responsibility for U.S. Navy ships, aircraft and submarines operating in the Caribbean Sea and the waters of Central and South America.

On 22 February 2005/24 June 2005, with the establishment of Allied Command Transformation, and in the total absence of the Soviet threat* that had prompted its creation, the Striking Fleet Atlantic nucleus was disbanded. It was replaced in 2006 by the Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Center of Excellence**.

*OK...

**What ever in hell that means...

 

[savage]

For what it's worth, that's the US Navy way. The 4th Fleet was reactivated in the Caribbean.

*OK...

**What ever in **** that means...​

The soviet military budget and scale far exceeds today's adversaries. Cuba was no longer a concern. etc...

Patrolling and supporting the Caribbean is key to control of the Gulf. Some of this is probably the war on drugs getting dedicated support.

That fits nicely with 3I admiralty behavior. FLT activation/ deactivation/ reactivation... simply makes sense.​

 

[DonM]

Five of the fleet numbers are duplicated, one is triplicated. Some of the fleet numbers are missing.

I think I have errata for that, from an "Ed's Brain Cell" discussion with Marc.

I was recently reminded that Ed hit some errata items in Tiffany Star and his personal newsletters, and since I have some of those, I've been going through them. I think Ed proposed and Marc approved some number fixes, and I added them to a future MegaTraveller errata draft.

Is that going to mess up this discussion?

 

[rancke]

I think I have errata for that, from an "Ed's Brain Cell" discussion with Marc.

I was recently reminded that Ed hit some errata items in Tiffany Star and his personal newsletters, and since I have some of those, I've been going through them. I think Ed proposed and Marc approved some number fixes, and I added them to a future MegaTraveller errata draft.

Is that going to mess up this discussion?

No, I'll go along with any official retcon. I think it's a pity to retcon this particular bit of (probably accidental) chrome, but I can't really claim that having no duplicate numbers is self-contradictory or doesn't work, can I? It's just a little more bland and uninteresting. All I can say is that duplicate numbers are not necessarily contradictory. I've seen these duplicate numbers as the result of emperors and would-be emperors raising extra fleets during the Civil War and some of those fleets achiving honors and accolades and eventually both ending up supporting Arbellatra, making it impolitic for her to disband them or renumber one of them. So instead there were two 16th Fleets, and to keep track of them one of them had some accolades added to the name and the other had some other accolades added, so that the one in Corridor is the Strong and Valiant 16th Fleet and the one in Fornast is the Loyal and Steadfast 16th Fleet (Of course 'Corridor's 16th Fleet' and 'Fornast's 16th Fleet' would be enough to distinguish them, but I like the idea of fleets earning accolades as a result of exceptional deeds).

Note that this is more than my "If it's not broken, don't change it" credo. I also think that (explainable) oddities improve the verisimilitude of a setting, lending color to what would otherwise be a bland and unconvincing sameness.


Hans

 

[ken at sunrise]

Which resource are you looking at for Fleet deployment and Fleet numbers?

 

[rancke]

Which resource are you looking at for Fleet deployment and Fleet numbers?

For 1116 deployments, the map on p. 26 of Rebellion Sourcebook. For pre-5FW deployments in the Marches, the maps in The Spinwards Marches Campaign.


Hans

 

[ken at sunrise]

For 1116 deployments, the map on p. 26 of Rebellion Sourcebook. For pre-5FW deployments in the Marches, the maps in The Spinwards Marches Campaign.


Hans

I have MegaTraveller and Classic Traveller (on CD too). So I have the Rebellion Sourcebook. Where is the Spinwards Marches Campaign? I have the maps for the Marches in CT.

[Edit] Oops I have them both - Rebellion Sourcebook in MegaTraveller and Spinward Marches Campaign with Classic Traveller.

Thanks,

 

[savage]

I think I have errata for that, from an "Ed's Brain Cell" discussion with Marc.

I was recently reminded that Ed hit some errata items in Tiffany Star and his personal newsletters, and since I have some of those, I've been going through them. I think Ed proposed and Marc approved some number fixes, and I added them to a future MegaTraveller errata draft.

Is that going to mess up this discussion?

Actually, fleet layouts are messier than you elude. You identify those assigned to Capital in your MT errata notes. I believe I mentioned it in the other forum.

Originally, I liked the idea, but having named-numbered fleets, is not what Rebellion Sourcebook states. As a matter of fact, there are more inconsistencies around fleets than just in the Rebellion Sourcebook. Using world not Traveller history, as an example can lead to more problems.

We can state "this is canon" and then canon is a bit odd here is a suggestion. I think your errata does a fine job of starting that initiative. As someone else said "It has to make sense."

 

[DonM]

And ultimately, future writers of future sourcebooks.

I still think there's a lot to be written in all milleux.

 

[rancke]

Actually, fleet layouts are messier than you elude. You identify those assigned to Capital in your MT errata notes. I believe I mentioned it in the other forum.

I must have missed this. What's the error in connection with the four extra fleets assigned to Capital? I see no problem with the emperor deciding to have a few extra fleets stationed at Capital. Is it the numbers of the fleets? The 309th, 310th, 311th, and 312th?

Originally, I liked the idea, but having named-numbered fleets, is not what Rebellion Sourcebook states. As a matter of fact, there are more inconsistencies around fleets than just in the Rebellion Sourcebook.

What's a name-numbered fleet? What are those inconsistencies? (I'm not doublting you, inconsistencies in Traveller are common, I'm just interested).


Hans