• 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.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

What is a Naval Base?

No, fritz. at best, they know where they were a week or two ago. If reaction options include breaking from schedule, then they know onky where they might have reached... and given misjump possibilities...they mightn't even be there.

But, Aramis, they're the only ones who even know that much. (I'm assuming real maneuvers, and not publicized moves.) To my mind, they'd be a hugely important link in the chain. They also should be getting courier boats to update the status of the fleet. (Again, IMHO.)
 
The base occurrence rules are in CT Bk2... 1977 edition. 5FW is much later - 1981. I suspect 5FW to have envisioned big ships; it's at least a year post-HG1, and at least several months post-HG2.

5FW is almost assuredly NOT ProtoTraveller.


But the real question (which may have been asked earlier, but this 3-4 pages per day pace is hard to keep up with) is...

Was the 5FW board-game actually intended to be integrated with, and become part of the rules for, the Traveller RPG?

Or is that a ret-con by the canonistas who insist that everything that ever bore a Traveller logo has to be combined with everything else that ever bore a Traveller logo into some kind of combined single item... no matter how badly the parts conflict with (and even render impossible) other parts?

Isn't is possible that 5FW was intended as a "stand-alone" boardgame that was always separate from the role-playing game, and that its rules on naval bases apply only to it and NOT to any Traveller RPG rule-set?
 
So I have a question for the guys here who know, because I don't: how often do the U.S. carrier groups have to rotate back to a base for resupply?

(A more interesting question: how would they be deployed for a big war, and how would they deal with taking damage?)

During sustained combat in Vietnam the US fleet was good for about one to one-and-a-half months being sustained from ships in the operations area.

These were for repeated deployments, with runs to Subic for parts, work, and time off for the crew, during those breaks.

The more recent wars have seen ship deployments this long, but without the sustained cycles of combat from the fleet.

The US is also seeking more forward basing options, we lost Subic, but seem to want some of it back now. We also now have Guam as a semi-major base, and have really ramped Sasebo back up as a base the last 20 years.

The 3I does not need fuel the same way we do now, and their missiles are one time use as opposed to trying to keep reusing planes being shot and caught over and over in salt spray--with all the parts headaches that causes.

It appears that 3I life support and food is also more compact somehow, which is a big plus. 3I crews get a room, which must help with lack of liberty issues.

Those are a bit short.

At the beginning of July 1987, USS Ranger CV-61 left San Diego California for a 6-month West-Pacific deployment.

After about 2 weeks we stopped at the US Naval Base Subic Bay. Philippines for 3 days.

We then headed over to Singapore for a 3-day port-call, where we did on-load some perishable supplies from the pier, but little else. We left there at the beginning of August.

We then headed to our operational area... the North Arabian Sea, south of Iran, arriving there in mid-August. We remained there until late October, then headed for Pattaya, Thailand.

We arrived there in early November, having totaled some 90 days continuously at sea. After 5-day port visit there (anchored off-shore) with no meaningful re-supply, we headed for Hong Kong, where we again anchored off-shore, and got no meaningful re-supply.

Finally we headed back to Subic Bay, arriving there in early December... about 120 days after we had last tied up at a pier, and then headed back to San Diego, arriving there just over 180 days after we left.


The key statistics are: 120 days between tying up to a pier, over 90 days continuously underway with all re-supply conducted ship-to-ship or via aircraft.
 
At the beginning of July 1987, USS Ranger CV-61 left San Diego California for a 6-month West-Pacific deployment.

After about 2 weeks we stopped at the US Naval Base Subic Bay. Philippines for 3 days.

We then headed over to Singapore for a 3-day port-call, where we did on-load some perishable supplies from the pier, but little else. We left there at the beginning of August.

We then headed to our operational area... the North Arabian Sea, south of Iran, arriving there in mid-August. We remained there until late October, then headed for Pattaya, Thailand.

We arrived there in early November, having totaled some 90 days continuously at sea. After 5-day port visit there (anchored off-shore) with no meaningful re-supply, we headed for Hong Kong, where we again anchored off-shore, and got no meaningful re-supply.

Finally we headed back to Subic Bay, arriving there in early December... about 120 days after we had last tied up at a pier, and then headed back to San Diego, arriving there just over 180 days after we left.


The key statistics are: 120 days between tying up to a pier, over 90 days continuously underway with all re-supply conducted ship-to-ship or via aircraft.


Thanks, Mr. Bat. That sounds to me like the way an Imperial battlegroup would work.
 
I hear criticism. I don't hear a "why not". In fact, I don't hear anything constructive at all - just a bad effort at sarcasm.:nonono:

Is there some canon rule that says a ship must be inside some structure to be repaired, where the difference between dreadnought sizes makes a major difference? Or is it more like men in workpods swarming like gnats around a ship floating in space, with specialized construction/repair structures attached and detached where and as needed? Which manner you view it in pretty much decides whether or not that base can serve a Tigress. As near as I can tell, either view is valid for a sci-fi game, but if there is some canon basis for favoring one view over the other, I would be happy to hear it.

And, it would likely be a bit more constructive than just making sarcastic noise.

I'm sorry if my reasoning sounded like sarcastic, I swear you it wasn't my intent. I just wanting to point a reason to believe every base (or at least most of them) are able to serve a Tigress.

About how are they served, I agree with you they are not put into an hangar, but served by small crafts/drones when working outside and by repair crews when inside, and that can even be made outside a base, if needed and the craft/drones/crews/spares are available.

My guess is that in this sense, the main role of the bases is just having all those available, so tht any ship, regardless its size, might be served.

And this includes not only the Tigress, but the million dton tender that is told about in sup 9, on the planetoid monitor explanation (IIRC, I don't have sup 9 handy now).
 
Those are a bit short.

(...)

The key statistics are: 120 days between tying up to a pier, over 90 days continuously underway with all re-supply conducted ship-to-ship or via aircraft.

But this was a pacetime deployement, when most of its calls to port were (as I understand) for R&R and probably political reasons (show the flag), not for operational (refuel or repairs) ones.

I guess in wartime (at least 'major war') it would spend more time at sea and make quite less calls to port, mostly to refuel and repairs (if needed).
 
But the real question (which may have been asked earlier, but this 3-4 pages per day pace is hard to keep up with) is...

Was the 5FW board-game actually intended to be integrated with, and become part of the rules for, the Traveller RPG?

Or is that a ret-con by the canonistas who insist that everything that ever bore a Traveller logo has to be combined with everything else that ever bore a Traveller logo into some kind of combined single item... no matter how badly the parts conflict with (and even render impossible) other parts?

Isn't is possible that 5FW was intended as a "stand-alone" boardgame that was always separate from the role-playing game, and that its rules on naval bases apply only to it and NOT to any Traveller RPG rule-set?
Emmm, you don't own the game do you? ;)

Pages 18 an 19, section entitled Role-Playing...

details how to use FFW as a campaign setting for your Traveller game.
 
Was the 5FW board-game actually intended to be integrated with, and become part of the rules for, the Traveller RPG?

[...]

Isn't is possible that 5FW was intended as a "stand-alone" boardgame that was always separate from the role-playing game, and that its rules on naval bases apply only to it and NOT to any Traveller RPG rule-set?

Fifth Frontier War was produced by GDW with the same core guys who wrote the Traveller rules, when Traveller was in full swing. The same guys who produced Supplement 9 and the Spinward Marches Campaign, and many of the adventures.

It was intended as a stand-alone boardgame. But it was not designed intentionally separate from the RPG setting; rather, it was integrated with it as much as possible, and it was also intended to help explain the Fifth Frontier War for the setting.

Your core suggestion, that the rules may abstract or differ from certain details of the setting, is reasonable. A wargame is not an RPG. The best you can do is minimize differences or separate the material enough that you can't see a setting difference.

Regardless, the game plays reasonably well with how the RPG's setting history can go.

The point of the boardgame was to model strategic decision-making during the Fifth Frontier War, not necessarily to model how the Imperium works.
 
Last edited:
But the real question (which may have been asked earlier, but this 3-4 pages per day pace is hard to keep up with) is...

Was the 5FW board-game actually intended to be integrated with, and become part of the rules for, the Traveller RPG?

Or is that a ret-con by the canonistas who insist that everything that ever bore a Traveller logo has to be combined with everything else that ever bore a Traveller logo into some kind of combined single item... no matter how badly the parts conflict with (and even render impossible) other parts?

Isn't is possible that 5FW was intended as a "stand-alone" boardgame that was always separate from the role-playing game, and that its rules on naval bases apply only to it and NOT to any Traveller RPG rule-set?
It includes integration with Traveller, and it was hyped in JTAS furiously.

There is nothing to indicate it wasn't to be considered canon at the time, and plenty to suggest it was. Plus, it's labeled as "Traveller Game 4" on most printings. (AHL was Game 3, and was the first appearance of explicit "Big Ship Universe" designs as canon.)
 
During sustained combat in Vietnam the US fleet was good for about one to one-and-a-half months being sustained from ships in the operations area.

The key statistics are: 120 days between tying up to a pier, over 90 days continuously underway with all re-supply conducted ship-to-ship or via aircraft.

That "continuously underway" is frequently longer nowadays (for the US Navy). As BlackBat notes, most resupply is not done in port, but at-sea, from a supply ship to the combat ship. It's dangerous (it involves driving ships *very* close to each other), but a highly skilled navy can do it regularly. This includes fuel, food, parts, and the occasional person. When they put in to port, they *do* re-supply, but they rely on the "underway replenishment".

The length of deployments has more to do with training, refit of the ships (new systems and such that have to be installed in a shipyard), and the sustainability of personnel than it does with re-supply.

Again - this is current US Navy and may or may not be applicable to YTU, or to OTU.
 
But the real question (which may have been asked earlier, but this 3-4 pages per day pace is hard to keep up with) is...

Was the 5FW board-game actually intended to be integrated with, and become part of the rules for, the Traveller RPG?

YES ... sort of. As Mike and Aramis have pointed out, there's a brief section talking about integrating the game into your role-playing session, so yes. Think of it as worms-eye-view canon. The war unfolds around the players, possibly affecting their lives as they deal with the repercussions or perhaps even find themselves caught up in the fighting. That part's canon. The stuff behind the curtains, out of sight of the players - not so much. The game is to the player-verse FFW as "Harpoon" is to an engagement between the Soviet and NATO fleets.

Has some interesting High Guard implications, though, if you enjoy that game.

Or is that a ret-con by the canonistas who insist that everything that ever bore a Traveller logo has to be combined with everything else that ever bore a Traveller logo into some kind of combined single item... no matter how badly the parts conflict with (and even render impossible) other parts??

I dunno, is this an ad hom or a straw man?

...Isn't is possible that 5FW was intended as a "stand-alone" boardgame...

No.

...that was always separate from the role-playing game,...

No.

...and that its rules on naval bases apply only to it and NOT to any Traveller RPG rule-set?

Very probably yes, though of course nothing prevents you from applying those rules if you like them. To each his own.
 
FYI, the boardgame is usually abbreviated FFW. 5FW is the abbrebviation for the historical event. Makes it easier to distinguish it and the boardgame from the 1FW and the 4FW.


Hans
 
Or is that a ret-con by the canonistas who insist that everything that ever bore a Traveller logo has to be combined with everything else that ever bore a Traveller logo into some kind of combined single item... no matter how badly the parts conflict with (and even render impossible) other parts?

Isn't is possible that 5FW was intended as a "stand-alone" boardgame that was always separate from the role-playing game, and that its rules on naval bases apply only to it and NOT to any Traveller RPG rule-set?

As others have said here, FFW seems to be thought as integral part of Traveller OTU, yet I agree there's some contradictions among those board games so thought.

As I pointed before, I don't see a way to represent in FFW rules something like Invasion Earth, where a planetary assault is given in more detail, and lasts several months.

In FFW, once you achieve orbital superiority and have a moderately large fleet there, the invasion is basically a mater of a few weeks, even if you have to bomb the planetary troops before landing, and such an invasion as IE, where bombings and combats are more localized (and so affect quite less troops) and planetary defenses may take its toll to the bombing fleet is not possible with FFW rules.

So, even as both games are canon to the same (or similar) extent (or so I understand them), they are quite contradictory in results.
 
I'm coming around to the Large Naval Base point of view. I'm not totally there, but there's precedent in the use of Scout Way Stations as Naval Bases in times of war.

Now, it doesn't mean that all naval bases are huge, but it does mean that all Scout Way Stations are as large as big naval bases -- and that BIG naval bases DO exist which can take care of a fleet.

I think this is something we all can agree on.
 
Well, one question is whether or not the shown naval bases are, in fact, all of them, or all of the naval outpost/whatever you want to call something that doesn't qualify as a base for some reason. If they aren't, then presumably there are many smaller 'bases' and the ones we know about are the ones that can take care of fleets or whatever.
 
I'm coming around to the Large Naval Base point of view. I'm not totally there, but there's precedent in the use of Scout Way Stations as Naval Bases in times of war.

Now, it doesn't mean that all naval bases are huge, but it does mean that all Scout Way Stations are as large as big naval bases -- and that BIG naval bases DO exist which can take care of a fleet.

I think this is something we all can agree on.

I was going to take that bet ;) ...but pendragonman has already broken it :)

If that's not quite what he meant, then I'll still take the bet and win it by being the first to say, no, I don't agree :D

I don't see Way Stations as large, or well equipped. They don't serve anywhere near the tonnage or numbers of Naval Bases. In my opinion and perspective of the game they are smaller and less well equipped than Naval Bases, but bigger and better equipped than Scout Bases.

I do agree some Naval Bases will be quite large and capable, those on High Pop worlds with high TL. And then there will the small and barely functional Naval Bases on the Low Pop worlds with moderate or low TL. It is these that my Strip Fleet concept addresses quite nicely I think. There is no need for extensive support from the Naval Base, most of the support travels with the Fleet and sets up station at the base. The base provides some elements that are less dependent on size and TL, such as Administration.

No, the Large Naval Base feel I'm getting from you is, IMTU at least, the Naval Depot. Naval Bases, even the largest and most advanced, pale in comparison to a Naval Depot.
 
Naval Bases, even the largest and most advanced, pale in comparison to a Naval Depot.

No disagreement there.

The reason I think Scout Way Stations could be large is due to their use as Naval Bases during war. This is explicitly mentioned. What is not said is just as important: Scout Bases are not used as Naval Bases during war. This sets up a hierarchy of sizes, with Naval Bases and Way Stations overlapping somewhere, and Scout Bases being the smallest and least equipped.

Hey, I found mention of a fifth installation -- the Xboat station, which is smaller than a Scout Base.

Here's what Library Data (Imperial Encyclopedia, copied from the old Library Data supplements) says.

Naval Depot: Serve as focuses for naval efforts

- supply a fleet's every need
- provide construction and repair facilities
- produce and test experimental ship prototypes.
- generally occupies an entire system.
- Facilities, material, and personnel are extensive enough to repair and resupply a large fraction of the fleet at any time.
- may be isolated from outside contact for years at a time without serious setbacks.
- effectively no distinction between orbital and surface berthing.
- In peacetime, the main function of a depot is the design and testing of ships.
- In wartime, depots serve as repair and resupply centers for the fleet.
- In emergencies, the depot's construction yards are sometimes pressed into service for production of military ships.
- security is tight.
- Contingents of marines and system defense boats are stationed throughout the system, and they are constantly ready for action.
- placed in systems where they will be close enough to the expected action to be useful, but far enough back to insure that they will not be captured.

Naval Base: a port facility for the support, maintenance, repair and refit of naval vessels

- The naval base is responsible for supporting the fleet and keeping it in optimum condition for its combat missions.
- not a tactical unit. It has no battle forces of its own, and it does not exert control even over local system defense boats (which are under a separate command).
- orbital berthing area (for Big Ships)
- planetary surface berthing area (for Adventure-Class Ships)
- maintenance section. Maintenance is performed on the ships on the world surface or in orbit as necessary.
- administrative headquarters.
- Berthing areas provide locations for ships to lay over, for a day or for months.
- All berthing areas include provisions for refueling from storage tanks or fuel lighters.
- Maintenance sections at naval bases vary from base to base. Where such a section would be redundant to the local starport shipyard, it is small, and repairs or alterations are carried out under contract by the local facility. Where adequate facilities do not exist, the naval base itself may have a large maintenance section capable of extensive repairs and refits.
- The administrative headquarters handles the day-to-day operations of the base, as well as its paperwork (including the allocation of funds, distribution of personnel, and disbursement of maintenance and repair contracts).

Scout Way Station: a Maintenance link in the express boat network

- devoted to the maintenance/overhaul, repair, and refit of express boats at points in their journeys.
- have stocks of scout-oriented repair and maintenance equipment
- have trained staffs of service personnel.
- are the equivalent of naval bases, although they are capable of servicing Big Ships 10,000 tons and less due to the size and orientation of their facilities.

Scout Base: Port facility for the support, maintenance, and repair of scout vessels

- tend to be on less well-developed worlds with starports type D or C.
- tend to be surface installations equipped with basic facilities for fueling and for minor maintenance activities oriented toward Adventure-Class Ships.
- positioned in systems more out of the way than naval bases.
- serve as a source of ships carrying dispatches from the well-travelled Xboat lanes to more remote worlds.
- most have an administrative responsibility
- maintenance and refueling of scout ships.
- Within a subsector, one base will hold responsibility for cartography in the subsector, another will be responsible for technical developments, and still another for contact or liaison activities.
- The scout base is more extensive than an Xboat station, but less comprehensive than a way station.

Xboat Station: Facility for handling Xboats at a star system

- handles the message traffic
- manages incoming and outgoing Xboats.
- Usually located near the edge of a star system
- picks up messages beamed to it by incoming Xboats and relays the data to the local world for delivery.
- Messages destined for worlds farther down the line are transmitted to a waiting Xboat which then jumps for the next world in the network.
- contains receiving and retransmission equipment;
- also provides refueling and support facilities for the local staff and waiting crew are also provided.
- maintains a local office on the system's major world for the acceptance of Xboat messages, as well as to handle delivery of the messages to addresses on the world.
 
Last edited:
Naval Depot. Fleet support? No idea. I don't think they do construction. I think they can mothball ships and stockpile supplies here, but why not do that in an empty hex? So access to a system's resources is an important part of this. (Why not?)

Per S9:

Depots include construction yards, repair facilities, design and testing installations, and training schools.
Yeah, I'm not sure about Fleet support either. Seems like they could, the "repair facilities" suggests as much.

Construction yards suggests a Class A starport, but the Naval Base stipulation that it is the local Starport that builds naval ships, and that it is civilian contractors operating same, suggests (to me) that the Depot yard/starport is for leading edge/experimental construction only, and probably limited in it's ability/availability for routine construction. Goes with the design and testing installations as well.

(posted while you added the Imperial Encyclopedia bits)
 
Back
Top