• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

What about the Navy?

Diveguy

SOC-12
Baron
In the spirit of my post on the Marine character path in Classic Traveller, I thought I’d take a similar look at the Navy. For purposes of discussion, I’m using LBB 1 Characters and Combat (1981 edition) only for this analysis. No High Guard, or other advanced/alternate character creation methods are part of *this* discussion. Merely seeing what conclusions someone might draw from the old material.

Let’s start with a look at the initial numbers. An Enlistment roll of 8+ with mods for high Intelligence and Education puts them at the second-hardest in game (if not tied for hardest with Marines, as the +2 for EDU is only for a 9+ stat). Survival in the Navy isn’t particularly hard however, equaling most paths at a 5+, and with an average INT getting you a +2 on that roll. Commission and Promotion we get interesting. 10+ for Commission is the highest in the game, and Social Status of 9 or better for a positive DM is again a pretty high bar. Once commissioned promotion is a little harder than average - again, EDU is a useful stat. Finally, reenlistment is relatively average - no surprises coming there.

Once we look at Skills things start to become more interesting. Personal Development is straight down the line for statistics - no combat skills or role play hints coming there. Service skills are a logical distribution of ship’s crew skills, with the only two personal combat skills (Blade and Gun) potentially showing here. Both Advanced Education tables reflect more of the same - slightly more technical skills, but also repeats of Vacc Suit, Gunnery, and Engineering showing up. Surprisingly, the automatic rank and service skills for Navy don’t even show up until Ranks 5 and 6 - and aren’t skills at all, but merely a +1 to Social Status at each level.

Finally, we have the Benefits and Cash table. Nothing particularly unusual, although skill distributions here remain focused on the INT/EDU/SOC side and not the physical. The only possible weapon roll is for a Blade. Cash is a rather similar distribution as that of most careers - there is an entry for a roll of “7”, possible only with Gambling skill, but as the 50kcr amount matches that of a roll of “6” the fact Navy characters can’t get Gambling is irrelevant.

So - now where does this put us?

The Navy is hard to get into, and even harder to advance in, unless you’re educated and well-connected. Based on these rolls the majority of Navy personnel are going to be rank 0 “crewmembers”, with no particular benefits beyond the normal skill rolls. These skills tend to be focused appropriately on the technical needs of shipboard life and combat. Interestingly, Navy characters can get Forward Observer as a skill, whereas Marine characters do not - does this imply Navy personnel are attached to Marine units for Ortillery operations? There is a shortage of personal combat skills as discussed, as well as a complete lack of any of the social/underworld skills such as Gambling, Carousing or Streetwise.

Rank and the Benefits table both reflect the other major aspect of a successful Naval career - increased Social Standing. In fact, when combined these show far more likelihood for a Navy character to move into the Nobility or similar ranks than any other career path. Cash is comparable to the other paths, so nothing stands out here.

This paints in my mind a great example of the Navy - it’s *the* military path for those of *proper* breeding to prove themselves and move ahead. Picture the British Navy of years gone by. Officers are men and women of stature and importance, and don’t sully themselves with battle beyond the occasional duel. Intelligence, Knowledge and the right family are far more important than athletic prowess. We can even extrapolate that the upper ranks would look out for each other (and promising up comers), making sure promotions and choice assignments go to the “right” candidates.

The other element this portrays is that the Navy really doesn’t “fight” much. Out of 36 possible skill results, 2 are for Gunnery, and 1 each are for Blade Combat, Gun Combat or Forward Observer. Surprisingly, Tactics isn’t even a result. So, instead of the grand space armadas battling it out motif we so often default to, we can see this Navy differently. Now perhaps we see them as primarily a transport force, providing supply and gunnery support for ground operations. Ship to ship battle still occur, but with the distances and requirements of space involved, it’s more cost-effective to focus on the nodes planets provide in order to project power.

As always, curious to hear what others think of this, and letting that shape further interpretations.
 
So, based on your emphasis on Social Standing and the upper ranks ensuring that only "proper" people get promoted, along with a complete lack of Tactics training, it looks like the Imperial Navy is a prime candidate for an interstellar "Charge of the Light Brigade".
 
In the Age of Sail, you have a division between the cannon fodder, the warrant officers and the commissioned officers.

Commissioned officers tend to be apprenticed from adolescence, and need sponsorship to get a midshipman slot.

Political connections and/or patronage is required for senior command, and that could depend on which party is in power at any one time; patrons also don't like to get embarrassed by their clients, so some modicum of ability is required.

Maritime service is a lot more technical than being in the Army; however, aggression is a quality that's cultivated in the Royal Navy, since they can afford to lose ships and men, combined with practical experience and seamanship, tends to win out nine out of ten times.
 
In the US Navy there are 7 land-based personnel for every ship-based position. That's a lot of boring stuff that doesn't involve ships, fighting, or anything that would be useful for adventuring. The majority of officers probably have at least one term on a ship of some sort. Enlisted men can spend their whole careers on dry land.
 
So, based on your emphasis on Social Standing and the upper ranks ensuring that only "proper" people get promoted, along with a complete lack of Tactics training, it looks like the Imperial Navy is a prime candidate for an interstellar "Charge of the Light Brigade".

Well, a couple of ways to take that thought:

- #1 - Yes, perhaps the Imperial Navy is a hollow force, and should they run into a better-prepared foe, would suffer accordingly. That begs the question of "Is the Navy Career displayed ONLY for Imperial characters - would other races/societies develop different skills?" if you wanted to go that route.

- #2 - as the original LBBs only hinted at any form of overarching government such as the Imperium, maybe instead there is sort of a "gentleman's agreement" regarding space conflict. Sure, we'll exchange fire in orbital distances, as part of the ground campaign and the like. But, in deep space, everyone plays nice - the universe itself is hostile enough as it is...
 
In the US Navy there are 7 land-based personnel for every ship-based position. That's a lot of boring stuff that doesn't involve ships, fighting, or anything that would be useful for adventuring. The majority of officers probably have at least one term on a ship of some sort. Enlisted men can spend their whole careers on dry land.

If you actually look at the current status of the Navy, a few quibbles on this:

- #1, it's equally possible for an officer to avoid a ship tour, depending on their particular career path.

- #2, for all I hate how "top heavy" Traveller is with ranks. The U.S. Navy currently has more Admirals (flag ranked officers) than they have commissioned ships.... :O. And the problem only increases as you move to the O4/5/6 ranks. I say this less as a reflection on adventuring potential, and more how a military organization can turn into a bureaucracy more concerned with self-promotion than warfighting.

Perhaps the LBB career path isn't as inaccurate as I thought...
 
My take on it:

Background1: the IN is the main political tool the Imperium has. In fact, one can even say the IN is the Imperium, as he who controls the In controls the Imperium, and, as the Imperium rules "the space between the stars", it is in fact all you need to control it, the rest being only to support the IN by having a sound and stable tax base.

In this view:

the fact SOC (that represents Imperial Social Standing, not planetary one) is important (mostly to commission) because the IN wants people who are commited to the Imperium (that use to be those with higer status on it), and OTOH, high standing (noble) families want to put their people in the IN to have a hand on the power it represents. The final result is that most IN officers are high standing ones, and, at its turn, IN becomes a good way to improve it, by showing your real commitement to the Imperium. The high commission number means an officer light career, so officers only are in the key positions in Navy ships, most others being filled with enlisted personnel.

Being mainly a high tech gear career, INT and EDU are quite basic stats (so giving bonus to admitance). For officers, EDU is the most critical (so giving bonus to promotion), as it's needed for most of its tasks, from navigation to knowledge of the Imperium etc. Phisical stats are seen as secondary, as tehy are more improtant for the Marines and other personal fighting careers.

As for skills, as you point, most are technical. I disagree in your take on gunnery, despite appearing only in 2 slots (out of 36), that makes it (along with Vacc suit) they are in both tables available to anyone: service and advanced education, making them both the most available skills in the Navy (while Engineering also appears 2 times, one is in the table 4, not available to all characters).

The service Table includes mostly what the low qualification spacehands should know and combat skills (I agree with you Forward observer is mostly for Ortillery2), while the advanced education one is (as expected) for more technical shipboard skills. The more prestigious skills (as Pilot and Navigation) are only available for those with higher EDU (As is medical, though I guess for different reasons, as Doctors use to be hightly educated people).

Also as you point, Tactics is not included (while in the explanation of the skill it is clear it includes individual ships), so giving us the paradox that the best captains for the IN ships (assuming the main skills for them are Tactics andLeadership) are likely to be the Marines it can carry... I guess this is moslty for lack of skill slots.

In any case, this would only affect individual ships, while I guess this situation is rare among NAvy ones, that are unlikely to act individually. As most such knowledge skills, I guess EDU must soemwhat be used, and it's a basic skill for promote among Navy officers.

Note 1: this assumes OTU (or similar) setting, not yet existing when LBB1, and so this NAvy basic Chargen was written.

Note 2: See that Forward Observer skill is unavailable to the Marines, so we canguess some Navy persnnel attaches to them in this role.
 
In the US Navy there are 7 land-based personnel for every ship-based position. That's a lot of boring stuff that doesn't involve ships, fighting, or anything that would be useful for adventuring. The majority of officers probably have at least one term on a ship of some sort. Enlisted men can spend their whole careers on dry land.

If you actually look at the current status of the Navy, a few quibbles on this:

- #1, it's equally possible for an officer to avoid a ship tour, depending on their particular career path.


Perhaps the LBB career path isn't as inaccurate as I thought...

The USN of today (at least in the 1980s ;) ) is structured for 1 "sea-going assignment" in every 2-3 (normally ~18 months per assignment), depending on the specialty... some, like medical (the vast majority of billets are shore) or aviation can, if the right sub-specialty is acquired (like crew/maintenance on land-based patrol aircraft) never go to sea.

It all depends on the specific career path.
 
Mind I don't know squat about the Navy (American or Imperial). So, most of this is based on stuff mentioned here.
So, based on your emphasis on Social Standing and the upper ranks ensuring that only "proper" people get promoted, along with a complete lack of Tactics training, it looks like the Imperial Navy is a prime candidate for an interstellar "Charge of the Light Brigade".
Perhaps, but even then The Charge was an anomaly. Tactics are important at the smaller level, but it's overall strategy and resources that will carry the war. There was some anecdote about how a Tiger tank had a kill ratio of, like 11 to 1. To which I noted "Good thing we brought 40,000 Shermans".

I'm also not convinced that space combat is an interesting tactical problem.

In the US Navy there are 7 land-based personnel for every ship-based position. That's a lot of boring stuff that doesn't involve ships, fighting, or anything that would be useful for adventuring. The majority of officers probably have at least one term on a ship of some sort. Enlisted men can spend their whole careers on dry land.

- #2, for all I hate how "top heavy" Traveller is with ranks. The U.S. Navy currently has more Admirals (flag ranked officers) than they have commissioned ships.... :O. And the problem only increases as you move to the O4/5/6 ranks. I say this less as a reflection on adventuring potential, and more how a military organization can turn into a bureaucracy more concerned with self-promotion than war fighting.

It makes complete sense to have far more officers than ships when much of them are serving administrative capabilities in the "tail" to keep the "teeth" working.

- #1 - Yes, perhaps the Imperial Navy is a hollow force, and should they run into a better-prepared foe, would suffer accordingly. That begs the question of "Is the Navy Career displayed ONLY for Imperial characters - would other races/societies develop different skills?" if you wanted to go that route.
Quantity has a quality all its own in combat.
 
Interesting conundrum, if one takes S4 along with LBB1 for basic chargen no LBB4+, then Pirates get Ship Tactics and can outfight most naval officers. Food for thought as wily pirate captains outfox the Navy most times- until the final fatal failed roll!


As per the others, here is my Advanced Services table, with Tactics includes Ship Tactics as per my wide/strong skill interpretation, along with LBB4+ and CE interpersonal skills-


Advanced Services (INT 8+)
1 Instruction
2. Naval Architect
3. Persuade
4. Tactics
5. Leader
6. Investigation


Usually I put in Gambling in AS just to give those careers a chance at better money, but I just felt each one of the above were too critical to replace with Gambling.



An interesting omission from LBB1 Navy is the Leader skill. To me that even more strongly suggests a service hidebound to rank and societal connection and not inspiration or personal respect.
 
My take on it:

Background1: the IN is the main political tool the Imperium has. In fact, one can even say the IN is the Imperium, as he who controls the In controls the Imperium, and, as the Imperium rules "the space between the stars", it is in fact all you need to control it, the rest being only to support the IN by having a sound and stable tax base.

In this view:

the fact SOC (that represents Imperial Social Standing, not planetary one) is important (mostly to commission) because the IN wants people who are commited to the Imperium (that use to be those with higer status on it), and OTOH, high standing (noble) families want to put their people in the IN to have a hand on the power it represents. The final result is that most IN officers are high standing ones, and, at its turn, IN becomes a good way to improve it, by showing your real commitement to the Imperium. The high commission number means an officer light career, so officers only are in the key positions in Navy ships, most others being filled with enlisted personnel.

Being mainly a high tech gear career, INT and EDU are quite basic stats (so giving bonus to admitance). For officers, EDU is the most critical (so giving bonus to promotion), as it's needed for most of its tasks, from navigation to knowledge of the Imperium etc. Phisical stats are seen as secondary, as tehy are more improtant for the Marines and other personal fighting careers.

As for skills, as you point, most are technical. I disagree in your take on gunnery, despite appearing only in 2 slots (out of 36), that makes it (along with Vacc suit) they are in both tables available to anyone: service and advanced education, making them both the most available skills in the Navy (while Engineering also appears 2 times, one is in the table 4, not available to all characters).

The service Table includes mostly what the low qualification spacehands should know and combat skills (I agree with you Forward observer is mostly for Ortillery2), while the advanced education one is (as expected) for more technical shipboard skills. The more prestigious skills (as Pilot and Navigation) are only available for those with higher EDU (As is medical, though I guess for different reasons, as Doctors use to be hightly educated people).

Also as you point, Tactics is not included (while in the explanation of the skill it is clear it includes individual ships), so giving us the paradox that the best captains for the IN ships (assuming the main skills for them are Tactics andLeadership) are likely to be the Marines it can carry... I guess this is moslty for lack of skill slots.

In any case, this would only affect individual ships, while I guess this situation is rare among NAvy ones, that are unlikely to act individually. As most such knowledge skills, I guess EDU must soemwhat be used, and it's a basic skill for promote among Navy officers.

Note 1: this assumes OTU (or similar) setting, not yet existing when LBB1, and so this NAvy basic Chargen was written.

Note 2: See that Forward Observer skill is unavailable to the Marines, so we canguess some Navy persnnel attaches to them in this role.


Some good points overall sir - thank you.
 
The USN of today (at least in the 1980s ;) ) is structured for 1 "sea-going assignment" in every 2-3 (normally ~18 months per assignment), depending on the specialty... some, like medical (the vast majority of billets are shore) or aviation can, if the right sub-specialty is acquired (like crew/maintenance on land-based patrol aircraft) never go to sea.

It all depends on the specific career path.

Right now it greatly depends on career path. However, if you ARE in a seagoing/ship billet, you can expect much longer rotations - most ships are seeing longer underway times due to maintenance availability issues balanced against commitments. SOF/EOD/a few other fields on the other hand see a different ratio. Intel and other similar fields, as you say, may never or rarely go to sea.
 
Mind I don't know squat about the Navy (American or Imperial). So, most of this is based on stuff mentioned here.

Perhaps, but even then The Charge was an anomaly. Tactics are important at the smaller level, but it's overall strategy and resources that will carry the war. There was some anecdote about how a Tiger tank had a kill ratio of, like 11 to 1. To which I noted "Good thing we brought 40,000 Shermans".

I'm also not convinced that space combat is an interesting tactical problem.





It makes complete sense to have far more officers than ships when much of them are serving administrative capabilities in the "tail" to keep the "teeth" working.


Quantity has a quality all its own in combat.


The issue isn't more officers than ships - it's more Admirals (Flag level, senior commanders) than ships - or even combatants as a whole. It's what happens when a service emphasizes rank and politics over field performance. Part of this stems from the fact the Navy, as a whole, has not realistically faced a maritime combatant challenge in almost 30 years, which is longer than many of these officers have served.
 
Interesting conundrum, if one takes S4 along with LBB1 for basic chargen no LBB4+, then Pirates get Ship Tactics and can outfight most naval officers. Food for thought as wily pirate captains outfox the Navy most times- until the final fatal failed roll!


As per the others, here is my Advanced Services table, with Tactics includes Ship Tactics as per my wide/strong skill interpretation, along with LBB4+ and CE interpersonal skills-


Advanced Services (INT 8+)
1 Instruction
2. Naval Architect
3. Persuade
4. Tactics
5. Leader
6. Investigation


Usually I put in Gambling in AS just to give those careers a chance at better money, but I just felt each one of the above were too critical to replace with Gambling.



An interesting omission from LBB1 Navy is the Leader skill. To me that even more strongly suggests a service hidebound to rank and societal connection and not inspiration or personal respect.

Interesting observation I'd missed with Leader, and a good point you make with it. I've always viewed it as even more of a "fluff" skill than tactics however - in that, yes it's a vital military element (the argument about trained/natural persisting since the days of Alexander, and will forever I fear) - but, does it really require a "skill" entry on a character sheet? Especially as I grow older and more focused on the idea "Skills should represent those key things a character excels and could get a job at" rather than "We must codify every ability the character has on paper or he/she can't attempt it in-game."
 
I took a long hard look at that, I've got a LOT bundled into Persuade including Bribery, Liaison, and some of the CE/MgT skills like Advocate. Arguably Leader is just a form of Persuade.


But Leader is a rare enough quality/skill that sets apart both those that have it and those that don't, and requires a lot of personal discipline, bearing, behavior and almost instinctual reactions that build on natural teambuilding that I ended up maintaining it as a definite skill.



I went with Deception replacing Forgery AND also meaning effective lying, acting, con artist, perhaps even Trojan Horses, etc. That could be another path to leadership and power but I would say that sort of skill comes from a different direction and often to a different result ultimately.


Taken together all three could be used as ways to lead people, but I would argue very different styles and techniques.
 
Back
Top