The Imperial Corridor Fleet

[savage]

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?


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

DonM's errata mentions capital ship fleets as missing, if i recall correctly.

Valiant 15th fleet, Dominator 15th fleet is what is classified as name-numbered fleet. I was the first to mentioned this as one possibility early in the thread, however, there are no naval fleet examples in Canon.

 

[rancke]

DonM's errata mentions capital ship fleets as missing, if I recall correctly.

Missing? 1st Fleet is stationed in Core Subsector (aka Duchy of Core) and the 309th, 310th, 311th, and 312th are stationed at Capital. Rather than being missing there seems to be an abundance of them.

Valiant 15th fleet, Dominator 15th fleet is what is classified as name-numbered fleet.

Classified where? By whom?

I was the first to mention this as one possibility early in the thread, however, there are no naval fleet examples in Canon.

What?!? There are three mentioned in the very paragraph that defines 'numbered fleet': "A numbered fleet may have a descriptor (which does not counts as a name) in its designation: for example, the 19th Battle Fleet, the 1st Provisional Fleet¹, and the 99th Penetration Fleet." [RbS:27]

¹ Now there, arguably, is a discrepancy. The 1st Provisional Fleet isn't one of the 320 numbered fleets. It certainly isn't the 1st Fleet that is stationed in Core. It was (presumably) a temporary fleet raised in the Spinward Marches prior to the 5FW and (again presumably) disbanded after the war.

The implication is that any group of squadrons sized and used in a manner similar to numbered fleets can be referred to as a 'numbered fleet', regardless of its designator.​

Hans

 

[savage]

Missing? 1st Fleet is stationed in Core Subsector (aka Duchy of Core) and the 309th, 310th, 311th, and 312th are stationed at Capital. Rather than being missing there seems to be an abundance of them.


Classified where? By whom?


What?!? There are three mentioned in the very paragraph that defines 'numbered fleet': "A numbered fleet may have a descriptor (which does not counts as a name) in its designation: for example, the 19th Battle Fleet, the 1st Provisional Fleet¹, and the 99th Penetration Fleet." [RbS:27]

¹ Now there, arguably, is a discrepancy. The 1st Provisional Fleet isn't one of the 320 numbered fleets. It certainly isn't the 1st Fleet that is stationed in Core. It was (presumably) a temporary fleet raised in the Spinward Marches prior to the 5FW and (again presumably) disbanded after the war.

The implication is that any group of squadrons sized and used in a manner similar to numbered fleets can be referred to as a 'numbered fleet', regardless of its designator.​

Hans

I brought it up as a possibility only. It is a Marc question, otherwise, it's questionable. If any, are true numbered fleets with varying names or honorific discriptors. There are no examples of duplicates, triplicates, etc... after all these are naval fleets not air/land/sea/space fighting units.


Please, review the MT errata for a discussion on Capital fleets.

 

[rancke]

It is a Marc question, otherwise, it's questionable.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Seems to me that in a sense everything is a Marc question. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it. It most certainly doesn't mean that we can raise a question and then refuse to discuss it on the grounds that it's a Marc question.

If any, are true numbered fleets with varying names or honorific discriptors. There are no examples of duplicates, triplicates, etc...

There are no examples of duplicate fleets with descriptors, true. But there are examples of duplicate fleets and there are examples of fleets with descriptors. I don't see any justification for dismissing the possibility of duplicate fleets with descriptors out of hand.

...after all these are naval fleets not air/land/sea/space fighting units.

True, but I don't see the significance. What does that prove?

Please, review the MT errata for a discussion on Capital fleets.

Please quote the MT errata that is the basis of arguments that you raise on these boards.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Numbered Fleets

In order to avoid same numbered fleets (I'm not suggesting they don't exist) wouldn't there be only a few Admirals with the authority to raise a new fleet and fewer still to assign permanent numbers (or names)?

Wouldn't each sector have a certain block of numbers reserved for that purpose? In the mean time, before official numbers are bestowed, why not the "Five Sisters Provisional Fleet", before becoming the IN xyz Fleet?

Also, 5th Deneb Reserve Fleet, 9th Corridor Colonial Fleet, etc? For Planetary Fleets (hmmm), planet designation comes ahead of number; Rylanor 3rd Fleet. Doesn't solve a current problem but could avoid future issues.

Also you would know just what political sphere the Fleet hails from.

 

[Matt123]

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.

Agreed. It is in our nature as humans to explain and "fix" flaws. From this basic driver comes either the official explanation (errata in this context) or imaginative stories (plot threads, stories, conspiracies, gossip).

I understand the driver for errata, but not the need. MM's Traveller is in the business of telling us stories. IMO it should be stories that explain the oddities.

 

[savage]

In order to avoid same numbered fleets (I'm not suggesting they don't exist) wouldn't there be only a few Admirals with the authority to raise a new fleet and fewer still to assign permanent numbers (or names)?

Wouldn't each sector have a certain block of numbers reserved for that purpose? In the mean time, before official numbers are bestowed, why not the "Five Sisters Provisional Fleet", before becoming the IN xyz Fleet?

Also, 5th Deneb Reserve Fleet, 9th Corridor Colonial Fleet, etc? For Planetary Fleets (hmmm), planet designation comes ahead of number; Rylanor 3rd Fleet. Doesn't solve a current problem but could avoid future issues.

Also you would know just what political sphere the Fleet hails from.

I would agree in general. It's a viable process based on what we've read in 4+ books that cover fleets. However, I'm pointing out we cannot state that replicated fleet numbers are facts because we have no clear example of them. And if they did, it would be a bad idea because, as you said, the Admiralty would assign a number block. Giving a descriptor to fleets and other military units is documented and a good idea since it defines the purpose. A quick example might be, the 16th Invasion Fleet had completed its task and now its the 16th Occupational Fleet. A real example, is Lucan taking the Corridor, Lishun, Core and Old Expanse Sector Fleets and creating the Vengeance Fleet (possibly the largest Traveller Fleet ever assembled). We do not know, the detailed breakdown of that Fleet. :CoW:

Everyone, The MT errata is freely downloadable.

 

[rancke]

However, I'm pointing out we cannot state that replicated fleet numbers are facts because we have no clear example of them.

And I'm pointing out that this is not true. We have clear examples of duplicate numbers, namely on the map on p. 26 of RbS. This fact does not change no matter how many times you deny it.

And if they did, it would be a bad idea because, as you said, the Admiralty would assign a number block.

That's an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that such odd little quirks enhance the verisimilitude of the setting.

Giving a descriptor to fleets and other military units is documented and a good idea since it defines the purpose. A quick example might be, the 16th Invasion Fleet had completed its task and now its the 16th Occupational Fleet.

That would be canon-compatible. (Side issue: Just what does the descriptor 'occupational' imply?)

Or we could use the handwave that I came up with a few hours ago:

Because the Imperial Navy distinguishes between 'numbered fleets' and 'named fleets', numbered fleets do not technically have names. Many of them do, however, have descriptors which serve much the same purpose. To the layman it is difficult to appreciate the difference.​

Please note that I'm not claiming that this is canon, just that's it's canon-compatible.

A real example, is Lucan taking the Corridor, Lishun, Core and Old Expanse Sector Fleets and creating the Vengeance Fleet (possibly the largest Traveller Fleet ever assembled). We do not know, the detailed breakdown of that Fleet. :CoW:

'Vengeance Fleet' is not the descriptor for a numbered fleet, it is a name for a named fleet.

Everyone, The MT errata is freely downloadable.

I know. It doesn't affect my point; if you rely on something to raise an argument, you shouldn't make it necessary for other debaters to dig it out for themselves.


Hans

 

[ken at sunrise]

It seems to me, looking at the Rebellion Sourcebook, that there are at least two named fleets in the Corridor. The Corridor Fleet with 16 numbered fleets and the Imperial Corridor Fleet with 4 numbered fleets. Savage also told me there are also fleets at the Depot in the Corridor also in the Rebellion Sourcebook.

And in the Imperial Corridor Fleet there is a numbered fleet which is 16. Also looking at the map there is also a numbered fleet 16 out toward Fornast. So it can happen. There are sometimes more than one fleet with the same number and sometimes more than one named fleet in a single sector. The Rebellion Sourcebook also says "Doctrine also provides for the creation of named fleets at any time". So all good, all cannon.

I think it gives the game flavor and room for stories. Besides I like my small Imperial Corridor Fleet of four named fleets.

 

[savage]

It seems to me, looking at the Rebellion Sourcebook, that there are at least two named fleets in the Corridor. The Corridor Fleet with 16 numbered fleets and the Imperial Corridor Fleet with 4 numbered fleets. Savage also told me there are also fleets at the Depot in the Corridor also in the Rebellion Sourcebook.

And in the Imperial Corridor Fleet there is a numbered fleet which is 16. Also looking at the map there is also a numbered fleet 16 out toward Fornast. So it can happen. There are sometimes more than one fleet with the same number and sometimes more than one named fleet in a single sector. The Rebellion Sourcebook also says "Doctrine also provides for the creation of named fleets at any time". So all good, all canon.

I think it gives the game flavor and room for stories. Besides I like my small Imperial Corridor Fleet of four named fleets.

ICF and CF are the same. All fleets are INS fleets. I've always thought Purge would be a good location for an Ambassador Fleet to cross the border. The 4 extra fleets are Depot fleets. This is why i choose Depot, I actually think it has more than 4 based from it. Now, remember a fleet can have 4000+ ships like Vengeance Fleet attempted or none.

A fleet can have a lot of ships or very few.

 

[savage]

That's an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that such odd little quirks enhance the verisimilitude of the setting.

I know. It doesn't affect my point; if you rely on something to raise an argument, you shouldn't make it necessary for other debaters to dig it out for themselves.


Hans

That is more than a little quirk. There are over 40 of those little quirks in the Fleet portion of MT:RS. Denmark doesn't have more than 1 fleet if any does it?
Oh I get it, "It has to make sense" only when Rancke says so.

In COTI we only need to identify the source. If you choose to be argumentative again, then I can choose to ignore this non-sense.

 

[rancke]

That is more than a little quirk. There are over 40 of those little quirks in the Fleet portion of MT:RS.

That the Imperial Navy has a number of duplicate fleet numbers is one quirk, not 40. Just as the cook on IN ships being commisioned officers¹ would be one quirk, not 50,000.

¹ Not canon.​

Denmark doesn't have more than 1 fleet if any does it?

Denmark has a navy. I'm not sure we have a fleet. The question is complicated by the fact that the Danish word for fleet and for navy is the same. But I don't see what that proves. The Roman Empire had six Legions numbered I, five numbered II, five numbered III, three numbered IV, two numbered V, three numbered VI, two numbered VII, two numbered X, two numbered XV, two numbered XVI, and two numbered XXII. It also had a Legion XXX and if it had any numbered between XXIII and XXIX, no evidence thereof has survived (at least not according to Wikipedia).

I've already provided a link in a previous post, but if you want me to post it again, just say the word.

In COTI we only need to identify the source. If you choose to be argumentative again, then I can choose to ignore this non-sense.

What we're having here is an argument. I grant you that it would be a better argument if you provided some content to it, but an argument nontheless. I don't see what so odious about being argumentative in an argument. But be that as it may, if you can't be bothered to support your claim, I don't see why anyone else should be bothered to take it seriously. So we can conclude that as far as the evidence posted thus far is concerned, there are no contradictions concerning the fleets canonically stationed at Capital.


Hans

 

[ken at sunrise]

ICF and CF are the same.[...]

Thank for your help. You probably have more info that I do but I don't understand the reasoning that these are the same fleets.
Corridor Fleet has the numbered fleets:
30, 31, 32, 33, 56, 58, 59, 60, 105, 133, 134, 153, 213, 214, 215, 255
The Imperial Corridor Fleet has the numbered fleets:
16, 27, 41, 70

Those are completely different fleet numbers. It makes sense and fits will within cannon that this second fleet is a special feet. Maybe it could be an Ambassador fleet that you proposed or a rapid response fleet like I thought it could be. It is the Corridor after all; right on the border perhaps according to the Rebellion Sourcebook there are, at least, 3 (three) named fleets. Two that bear the name Corridor and one Corridor Depot Fleet.

Who knows, it's a fun game with a lot of back ground. That's part of what attracts many of us to it.

Thanks for your help,

 

[ken at sunrise]

P.S. You, Savage, mentioned the Corridor Depot had four fleets. I thought Depot fleets only numbered 3 (three).

 

[Vladika]

That is more than a little quirk. There are over 40 of those little quirks in the Fleet portion of MT:RS. Denmark doesn't have more than 1 fleet if any does it?

Oddly enough there are "over 40" ships in Denmark's navy. Quite large for so small a country and many are very modern and capable frigates. I'd call that a fleet.

Oh I get it, "It has to make sense" only when Rancke says so.

Often, yes, but isn't that true for all of us?

In COTI we only need to identify the source. If you choose to be argumentative again, then I can choose to ignore this non-sense.

This is true but citing it would be more helpful. I follow this thread off and on (it's like an American Soap Opera, nothing changes week to week, but it's addictive none the less) and I personally would find the specific references helpful. I'm nowhere near as familiar with the other versions of Traveller than I am with CT.

I'm not trying to take sides here (futile at best) as I think both of you are generally informative and, occasionally, entertaining...

 

[Dagrill]

That is more than a little quirk. There are over 40 of those little quirks in the Fleet portion of MT:RS. Denmark doesn't have more than 1 fleet if any does it?

Off topic, but Denmark has two 'fleets', one for the Atlantic and one or the Baltic, same way the USA has one for the East Coast and one for the West Coast and apparently one for the Caribbean Coast now, but on a slightly smaller scale.

Kind Regards

David

 

[savage]

Off topic, but Denmark has two 'fleets', one for the Atlantic and one or the Baltic, same way the USA has one for the East Coast and one for the West Coast and apparently one for the Caribbean Coast now, but on a slightly smaller scale.

Kind Regards

David

Thanks for being the best informed on Denmark. Actually, 1 fleet (the Danish Navy) with 2 squadrons of 54 ships plus some boats. Each led by a Flotilla/Squadron Admiral. I recall there were more squadrons during the cold war.

Pretty cool.

The US has had 10 fleets (not including historic named fleets). The activities of the 6 active fleets vary dramatically, but typically they cover regions which is a historical approach. There is no replication in the numbered fleets.:rofl: Also, the 4th Fleet covers Caribbean, East Coast which was reactivated in 83'.

 

[rancke]

The US has had 10 fleets (not including historic named fleets). The activities of the 6 active fleets vary dramatically, but typically they cover regions which is a historical approach. There is no replication in the numbered fleets.:rofl:

That would be relevant if I was claiming that duplicate fleet numbers were unavoidable. Since I'm only claiming that duplicate fleet numbers are possible, it's not relevant at all.


Hans

 

[savage]

Thank for your help. You probably have more info that I do but I don't understand the reasoning that these are the same fleets.
Corridor Fleet has the numbered fleets:
30, 31, 32, 33, 56, 58, 59, 60, 105, 133, 134, 153, 213, 214, 215, 255
The Imperial Corridor Fleet has the numbered fleets:
16, 27, 41, 70
Two that bear the name Corridor and one Corridor Depot Fleet.

Who knows, it's a fun game with a lot of background. That's part of what attracts many of us to it.

Thanks for your help,

You're welcome, Ken.
I have been going through a second analysis of all of this. The first was 10+ years ago and I did not have 3 references at the time.

All ships are Imperial Naval Ships (INS). So, Fleets would follow the same convention. For example, United States Second Fleet or United States Navy Second Fleet to be more accurate.

 

[ken at sunrise]

But the Rebellion Sourcebook clearly shows duplicate numbers being used.

I don't see the argument? Why sweat the little stuff, in our own universe we can do whatever we want. If one doesn't have duplicate numbers cool, if someone else wants to stick closer to cannon then there may be a few.

It's a game.