Wiki Discussion: ACS/BCS are meta-game or in-game

[tjoneslo]

This is relevant for the wiki as it affect how much space we give to explaining what these terms are from the perspective of characters in the universe.

Meta-game: The Adventure class ships is a term used strictly by the player ship-builders. The wiki will have a passing reference in some talk pages and on the meta-data pages. But none of the ship descriptions nor the explanation of other terms will have any reference to ACS, BCS, or related items.

In-game: The "Adventure class ship" is a term used by the characters, the nobility, various members of the bureaucracy. There will be an article or section of an article describing the terms and it's definition. All the ship designs will have this as part of the classification system.

My opinion is "ACS" is a meta-game terms. It applies to the ship builders based upon the design system. The in-game architects have no real idea of the difference between size. Their is no

As an in-game term "ACS" is a official term would not be expanded to "Adventure class ship". It may officially be something else and generally referred this way. So some hand-waving in the explanations would be applied.

 

[whulorigan]

As an in-game term "ACS" is a official term would not be expanded to "Adventure class ship". It may officially be something else and generally referred this way. So some hand-waving in the explanations would be applied.

Perhaps the in-game terms are:

ACS = Auxiliary Class Ship (Naval designation)

BCS = Battle Class Ship (Naval designation)
BCS = Bulk Class Ship (Commercial designation)

CCS = Capital Class Ship (Naval designation)

 

[mike wightman]

It is meta.

Do a search on the FFE CT disc for adventure class ships or the acronym ACS - it doesn't exist. I may spend some time trying to track down when the term was originally used.

 

[Spinward Flow]

ACS is definitely Referee/Player shorthand for something that "isn't thought about THAT way" in-universe.
Naval architects aren't asking clients if they want to design an ACS or a BCS.
So it's more of a convenient label to use at the gaming table, rather than something which is "native" to how ships are thought about by the (imaginary) people living inside the game.

The closest you could get to a kind of dividing line for it would be something akin to the "small business" designation.
Companies that employ 40 people or less are often times considered to be "small business" operations, with some taking it even further down to the "mom & pop" level of a family run business that employs 10 or less people.

However, once you get over about 40 people in an organization (and in a military context, 41 people is a platoon), you start getting mid-level management and administration and all that other fun stuff where the business stops being "quite so small" (and intimate) in structure and day to day operations (there are people who work there that you never talk to).

So an ACS is more like a "family" run ship akin to a small business venture, while a BCS is more like a "corporate" entity operating in a different strata. Where the line between the two lies is a bit fuzzy, but it makes sense for Referees and Players to intuit that there is a distinction between the two.

 

[whulorigan]

It is meta.

Certainly. No one in-universe is going to call vessels of a certain size range "Adventure class". (Battle Class might be more believable in-universe for large, typically Naval vessels with certain characteristics, however).

. . . I may spend some time trying to track down when the term was originally used.

I believe it was first used in the CT era by the Keith Brothers in the FASA publications: "Adventure Class Ships, Volumes I & II ".

 

[whulorigan]

Also keep in mind that some type of size-designation(s) may be used within naval architecture circles simply to categorize what size of ships a given Construction Yard can produce. A Class A or B Starport does not necessarily mean that it can automatically produce a vessel up to 500 ktons just because it is Class-A or Class-B. "Can produce Starships/Spacecraft" does not automatically mean "of any size".

 

[robject]

SO meta.

 

[whartung]

ACS is definitely Referee/Player shorthand for something that "isn't thought about THAT way" in-universe.

I agree with this, but there's precedent about the entire universe being a "small ship" universe, which today is conflated with ACS.

So, that's where clarity is in order during discussions.

 

[Spinward Flow]

but there's precedent about the entire universe being a "small ship" universe

That's a byproduct artifact of the fact that the ship designs ALL started out with LBB2.77 (even the CT Alien Modules are written using letter coded standard drives from LBB2). It was only later with the LBB5.80 revamp (that was much less cumbersome to work with) did the rules open up to allow ships above 5000 tons.

Something something ... second chance at a first impression ... mumble, fink, mumble.

 

[whartung]

Something something ... second chance at a first impression ... mumble, fink, mumble.

Indeed.

 

[aramis]

I concur that it's meta.

@whulorigan - Many real-world naval auxiliaries aren't small - many are cruiser sized. Colliers/Oilers, the stores ships (for underway replenishment), the USN's Kaiser class is 677', Lewis & Clark class is 689', and the Supply Class is 754', the old Mars Class Combat Stores Ship was 581'...
The Minsweeper USS Guardian was 224'. USNS Mercy, a hospital ship, is 894'. Independence class CVL 622', Saipan CVL 683'

Non-aux: the USS Reagan subclass is 1092'. The Burke Class is 505' to 510'... And BB-62 USS New Jersey is only 877'...

The equivalent of ACS would be sub-200' fishing vessels, inland shipping craft (such as which ply the inland navigable waters of the Yukon and Mississippi rivers)...