• 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.

Wiki Discussion: Ship Mission Codes

Agreed.

But remember there are no BBs under ACS. ALL BBs are BCS. The overlap between ACS and BCS comes with the Large ACS/Small BCS Cruiser Classes. An ACS (Colonial) Cruiser is in the same general size category as a BCS Minor/Escort Cruiser/Fleet Destroyer. The Cruiser classification has always had a fairly wide range of specializations and sub-classes.

Ah, but what Whartung is noting is that there are no BBs either: the principal (ship of the line, capital ship) is the Cruiser. "BB" in AOTI is an informal term.
 
Ah, but what Whartung is noting is that there are no BBs either: the principal (ship of the line, capital ship) is the Cruiser. "BB" in AOTI is an informal term.

I am not understanding this conclusion. Since the only terminology we have for BCS ships is AotI, which uses both the "informal" terms "Battleship" and "Cruiser" for different vessel types, how do we arrive at the conclusion that Battleship is merely a colloquialism, but Cruiser is a formal term? I am not certain that we can just extend the ACS ship classifications to BCS sizes.

In ACS a Cruiser is a Primary Offensive Combatant. But in BCS sizes, a "Cruiser" is explicitly subordinate to a "Primary", even in the colloquial terms.
 
Last edited:
I try to use ACS terms for describing Battle-Class Ships, and I find that the terms used in AOTI seem to resemble secondary descriptors, or mission modifiers.

Most of the capital ships are types of Cruisers -- Battle Cruisers -- of various flavors.
 
I try to use ACS terms for describing Battle-Class Ships, and I find that the terms used in AOTI seem to resemble secondary descriptors, or mission modifiers.

Most of the capital ships are types of Cruisers -- Battle Cruisers -- of various flavors.

So since "Cruisers" historically have ranged over a wide variety of sizes and mission-specifics, even if the BCS Primary is officially a "Cruiser" (based on the specified ACS terms for Primary Offensive Combatants), then your suggesrting that the specific cruiser sub-type would be related to its size, from Battlecruiser (or "Capital Cruiser") at the high end (~100 kton +) down to Light/Escort Cruiser at the low end (approaching the ACS "Colonial" Cruiser in size). So ALL BCS Offensive Combatants would fall under the Cruiser rubric, with an appropriate modifier.

Destroyer could still formally be a larger vessel distinct from the Cruiser sub-type since it is listed as a "Special" Offensive Combatant without relation to size (just not a Primary).

Am I understanding correctly?
 
Last edited:
Well that's how it falls out when I fool around with the codes, with what I understand to currently be the case. Pending changes as usual, since things do change.

Classic Traveller avoided some of this by having a separate set of mission codes for High Guard ships. But a Cruiser could still be 800 tons, or 80,000 tons.
 
Here's what I was seeing in Agent of the Imperium:

Agent MissionAgent Mission CodeT5 Mission Modifier
ArmoredAArmored
Beam, BattleBBattle
MonitorDDefense
FastFFast
FlagFFlag
FighterF-
StrikeK-
LanderLLifeboat
MissileM-
OrbitalO-
QuarantineQQuarantine
RiderRRider
SlowSSlow

BCS codes follow an informal nomenclature. Commonly, they are only referred to by their secondary codes, with the main code omitted. Presumably the main code is known so well or so common that it's assumed by the source.


BCS Codes
CodeCT
GDW
CT High Guard
GDW
AOTI
MWM
ReferenceRemarks
AF (AFE)--Auxiliary Fast CorvetteAOTI 44, 57, 60, 65, 67"Corvette" (E) is assumed.
BB (BBC or BBG)BattleshipBattleshipBeam Battle Cruiser
Beam Battle Frigate
AOTI 9, 18, 62-63, 84, 96-99"Cruiser" (C) or (less common) Frigate (G) is assumed.
BBF (BBFC)--Beam Battle Flag CruiserAOTI 67, 250"Cruiser" (C) is assumed
BF (BFC)--Battle Flag CruiserAOTI 52, 56"Cruiser" (C) is assumed
BK (BKC)--Battle Strike CruiserAOTI 65, 189-190, 200-201, 206, 211This is a Tigress
BKF (BKFC)--Battle Strike Flag CruiserAOTI 29, 34, 100"Cruiser" (C) is assumed
BMF (BMFC)--Battle Missile Flag CruiserAOTI 116-117, 119-120"Cruiser" (C) is assumed
BR (BRG or BRB)Battle RiderBattle Rider Frigate
Battle Rider Boat
SMCp35"Frigate"/"Boat" assumed
CB (CBC)Carrier Battle CruiserSMCp35"Carrier" (C) is assumed
 
Last edited:
Well, BB, CA, Scout, Tug, Dingy -- whatever they're called, there's should be some basic for rough equivalency. My CA should be roughly comparable to your CA. That's where the ACS/BCS distinction needs to be clear.
 
Destroyer could still fromally be a larger vessel distinct from the Cruiser sub-type since it is listed as a "Special" Offensive Combatant without relation to size (just not a Primary).

In T5 the Destroyer is a "Special" offensive ship, and not a type of Escort (which is what Supplement 9 calls it).

So Destroyers have some go-git-em capability, perhaps to pursue and destroy minor annoyances. The destroyers in S09 are 1000 tons, but there's no reason we can't have a 100,000 ton destroyer. It would certainly be formidable for establishing a zone of control for active bad-guy suppression.
 
Last edited:
Well, BB, CA, Scout, Tug, Dingy -- whatever they're called, there's should be some basic for rough equivalency. My CA should be roughly comparable to your CA. That's where the ACS/BCS distinction needs to be clear.
I agree 100% there. I'd like it if the codes were distinct. There are ways of getting that. I think the system in T5 is a foundation, leaving that open to interpretation.

I know there are a finite set of Big Ship codes. Perhaps it's just a matter of enumerating them and that's that. As Thomas said elsewhere, if the codes are broad enough that should be OK.


In fact when you say "CA" I think of ships like the Ghalalk, which is very definitely a Big Ship.

Similarly when I hear "BB" I know it's a Battleship / Dreadnought. So there's momentum behind making sure we can use these codes as usual, while explaining how they extend (or differentiate from) ACS in a clear manner.

When I look at Supplement 09, SMC, Battle Rider, and AOTI, I see some codes that "should be" unique for BCS:

CodeShip Type
BB, BBL, BBH, BBK...Battleship, Dreadnaught. Light, Heavy, Strike...
BR, BRL, BRH, BRK...Battle Rider. Light, Heavy, Strike...
BTBattle Tender
CC, CA, CF, CH, CK, CL...Cruiser, Armored, Frontier, Heavy, Strike/Intruder, Light...
DD, DA, DF, DH, DK, DL...Destroyer, Armored, Frontier, Heavy, Strike/Intruder, Light...
?BBattle Carrier
?FFighter Carrier
 
Last edited:
Well, BB, CA, Scout, Tug, Dingy -- whatever they're called, there's should be some basic for rough equivalency. My CA should be roughly comparable to your CA. That's where the ACS/BCS distinction needs to be clear.

So I tried to enumerate the BCS, and came up with a matrix that's more or less Battle-Classy. But I think that some of this effort is wasted.

Consider the Armored Cruiser. This can be a 2,000 ton mercenary vessel with a pile of armor and a brace of turrets. Or it can be a 60,000 ton up-armored Ghalalk.

Frankly it doesn't matter that they're both "C". We will never talk about them in the same context.



Now let's fast forward to BCS tournaments, where you bring your squadron and I bring mine. => By the way, you'll win, because I am really not very good at wargames.

We each have a supported squadron of cruisers. You call yours a CA squadron. I call mine a CH squadron. Is there going to be enough distinction in a single letter to accurately and safely differentiate yours from mine?

I mean, does "Armored" really mean "If a Cruiser, then it has between 8 and 16 layers of armor"?
And, does "Heavy" really mean "If a Cruiser, then it displaces between 75,000 and 100,000 tons"?

How do we pick those setpoints? And is that worth the effort? And is that what matters when we're comparing cruisers?

Or... as Thomas has been beating his drum... is it enough to know that they are each Cruiser Squadrons, and also to know the price of each?
 
Last edited:
Consider that secondary codes could be misleading... on purpose.

And also consider that =size= is probably the best differentiator between ACS and BCS. Price being second best.

"This is my 2,400 ton Cruiser." => Obviously ACS.
"This is my 10,000 ton Cruiser." => Obviously BCS.
"This is my 5,000 ton Cruiser." => Obviously a liar.
 
Consider that secondary codes could be misleading... on purpose.

And also consider that =size= is probably the best differentiator between ACS and BCS. Price being second best.

"This is my 2,400 ton Cruiser." => Obviously ACS.
"This is my 10,000 ton Cruiser." => Obviously BCS.
"This is my 5,000 ton Cruiser." => Obviously a liar.

This has been my contention: a BCS is clearly distinguishable from an ACS based on displacement. A BCS Cruiser is clearly not an ACS Cruiser by simple observation - there is no confusion. If it comes down to the Imperial Navy assigning a BCS code to an ACS ship (even an ACS Cruiser) attached to a BCS Fleet, its Main Mission Code would be "A" (Auxiliary), with appropriate ACS modifiers (e.g. AAC - Auxiliary Attack Cruiser).
 
Just a reminder about human tendency, Rob: If the core only includes ACS, there are those who will ignore the BCS rules entirely, and have BB's by role at the size caps of the ACS rules.

It's been that way since CT Bk5 was released... and again in MGT... for a perfect example of the mindset, see my Elestrial Concordat setting... the "BB" of that setting is 2000Td... for a MGT1 hacked setting.
 
Now that this conversation has drifted off to another place, back to the original purpose.

In addition to the primary mission code, of which we have 12 (at minimum) and possibly as many as 15 depending, and given the no ACS/BCS split in codes for in-game ship mission codes, I'm going to turn my attention to the secondary or modifier codes. Zero to two are attached in some manner to the primary code to more exactly define the ship mission. Or in some cases confuse it.

CodeModifier name(s)
AAlternate, Improved, Armored, Attack
BBoat. Bulk. Battle. Big.
CClose. Carrier. Communications. Construction. Cutter.
DDefense. Defending. Interceptor. Transport
EEscort. Essential. Electronic Warfare
FFast. Fat. Frontier. Far. Flag. Free. Fleet. Figher
GGunned. Upgunned. Gas, Governmental. Gig
HFuel. Tanker. Hydrogen. Heavy
JSurvey. Prospector. Interface. Intruder
KSubsidized. Fast, Diplomatic, Courier
LLR. Lifeboat. Exploratory. Light. Leader. Launch.
MMilitary. Militia. Mercenary. Motivator. Tug. Mining, Missile
NNaval. Nuclear. Fleet. Non-standard. Pinnace.
P
Patrol. Plus. Passenger, Mercenary, Pursuit. Provincial
QDisguised. Decoy. Quarantine, Mother
RRecon. Rescue. Rider. Resident. Raider
SSlow. System. Special. Luxury. Small. Strike. Survey. Shuttle
TTramp. Tender. Transport. Tanker.
UUnarmed, Hulk. De-activated. Inoperative
VVehicle Carrier, Drone. Remote. Replenishment. Agricultural
WUnpowered. Non-Jump. Barge
XExperimental. Special. Express.
YHull. Subhull. Pod. Rider. Modular. Private. Shuttle. Cutter
ZUnassigned, Experimental.

These are from the T5 core rules, with a few modifiers added from MT and CT. The T5 rules specify the modifiers as either leading (Modifer - Primary) or trailing (Primary - Modifier). We can add as many new options (or make new ones) as needed.

Once this table is finalized (to the extent it could be) I'll bring up setting the final codes for the known primary codes.
 
Consider that secondary codes could be misleading... on purpose.

And also consider that =size= is probably the best differentiator between ACS and BCS. Price being second best.

"This is my 2,400 ton Cruiser." => Obviously ACS.
"This is my 10,000 ton Cruiser." => Obviously BCS.
"This is my 5,000 ton Cruiser." => Obviously a liar.
That’s not a lie, that’s a treaty cruiser.
 
I’ve got a suggestion re: small craft.

Use a small letter s to denote small craft, then a capitalized modifier to denote classic type or function.

So sP for pinnace, sF for fighter, sL for lab, sS might mean shuttle or scout, etc.

Alternatively, lower case lead for small craft type and second if any for mission modifier- p for pinnace, f for fighter, sL means shuttle lab and sS is shuttle scout.
 
I’ve got a suggestion re: small craft.

Use a small letter s to denote small craft, then a capitalized modifier to denote classic type or function.

So sP for pinnace, sF for fighter, sL for lab, sS might mean shuttle or scout, etc.

Alternatively, lower case lead for small craft type and second if any for mission modifier- p for pinnace, f for fighter, sL means shuttle lab and sS is shuttle scout.
I like that!
 
I’ve got a suggestion re: small craft.

Use a small letter s to denote small craft, then a capitalized modifier to denote classic type or function.

So sP for pinnace, sF for fighter, sL for lab, sS might mean shuttle or scout, etc.

Alternatively, lower case lead for small craft type and second if any for mission modifier- p for pinnace, f for fighter, sL means shuttle lab and sS is shuttle scout.


sFL - Fighter (Light)
sFH - Fighter (Heavy)
sFB or sFM- Fighter (Missile or Torpedo-Bomber)
sFA -Fighter (Attack)
sFR -Fighter (Recon)
sFF - Fighter (Interceptor/Pursuit)
sA(R)(Y) - Lifepod
sLL or sLS - Cockboat
sL(R) - Lifeboat
sL - Launch
sG - Gig
sB - (Ships)Boat
sBS - Slowboat
sP or sN - Pinnace
sPS or sNS - Slow Pinnace
sCF - Runabout
sC - Cutter
sCY - Modular Cutter
sCH - Fuel Cutter
sS - Shuttle
 
So, I can have a 100K ton "fighter"?

A 50K ton "Pinnace" or ships boat?

Don't some of these labels come with presumptions of what they without needed something like an "s"?
 
So, I can have a 100K ton "fighter"?

A 50K ton "Pinnace" or ships boat?

Don't some of these labels come with presumptions of what they without needed something like an "s"?

There is a small craft code table on the Ship Identifier page as well (T5.10 Book 2, p.68: Table "Q").

Also note that in common or colloquial usage the "s" might typically be dropped (such as on a tail fin #). But the "s" code may still be common in record databases for clarity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top