Gentlesophonts:
"In argument, truth is discovered."
-Russian proverb
I think we're narrowing in on some truths here. Thanks to all who've been
*contributing* (as opposed to those who've just flamed). :-)
From Thursday night (?), Hans Ranke [email removed] writes:
> Analyse the economic strength of the 30 billion people in the Sword Worlds.
> Now match the figure you arrive at against
> the figure TCS gives you and against the 42 battleships _RS_ gives you.
> Which is closest? By how many orders of magnitude?
Okay, this might work (but I ain't gonna do it!). There seems to be much room
for variation here though. Isn't the '42' *RS* figure already within two
orders of magnitude of what *TCS* might suggest (~5000 'capital' ships)?
I would guess the 42-ship figure itself already has something like a plus
or minus one order of magnitude uncertainty. This particular course might
lead to nothing more than a flame war over assumptions.
> >What I'm asking is why you choose to accept *TCS* data over *RS* data?
>
> They make more sense.
I guess I'd like to see something along the lines of what you've proposed
above rather than just a statement that asks us to accept this as a given.
Fortunately, Cynthia makes a stab at this in a bit.
> BOTH_TCS_ and _5FW_ are based on the same reality. A few simple calculations
> show that that can't be true. Now what?
Good question. I certainly don't have the answer!
> And you just the other day agreed with me that the only faintly reasonable
> explanation for this is that the Imperials blundered massively and didn't
> fight the ihatei with anything approaching an important Impy force.
Yes, I agreed. So one course is just to say "A ha!" and congratulate
ourselves on catching GDW with their pants down around their ankles.
Another, possibly more interesting, course might consider that Norris is
an even more incredible strategic thinker than we've thought and thus
he *conceeded* these regions to the *ihatei* knowing they could be
assimilated and used later against the Vargr, or Lucan or whatever threat
Deneb (and later the Regency) might face.
Les Howie [email removed] writes:
> Subject: Ship Designations
>
> I am hardly a TLC cultist, but I do have an answer for that one: NO.
Hmmmm. There seems to be some disagreement here. Are we headed for the
great TCS schism? :-)
> when I
> start FF&S design, I plan to stuff the whole mess for a new set of functional
> designations that have some relation to real tactical employment.
I hope you'll share it with us.
Cynthia Higginbotham [email removed] writes:
> As usual, most of my arguments are with Dave Johnson... :-)
Yeah, yours and everyone else's! :-)
> If you think the modern or future world has nothing to learn from
> the military geniuses of the past,
Nope, I don't think this at all. (I've read *Art of War* too and I liked
it so much I there's a Dolphin mercenary named Sun-Tzu Sharkkiller in my
Earth Colonies campaign. Nevertheless, I don't think USMC commanders
have beheaded anyone who disobeyed orders lately!) My point was that
much of what we accept today about the actual conduct of warfare will
change through seven tech levels even if many of the underlying concepts
are timeless.
> IT MAKES NO SENSE for worlds to build a tiny fraction of the
> Navy they are capable of building, especially when their "lives,
> fortunes and sacred honor" are threatened
Good points all. As far as I'm concerned you've made the point that Hans
was suggesting above. Can we go on now to figure out what a 'typical'
fleet and squadron in the Regency might look like? Can we determine what
the total military (navy and army) forces of the Regency are? This was
my intention way back when.
> >You know someone with 10,000 years of space combat experience? :-)
>
> You're being silly. I can go to my bookcase and pull out two
> military works by generals dead over 2000 years
Yes, yes, I know. I know the *Imperium* has this access. What I was
questioning was your apparent claim that somehow we 20th Century Humans
(specifically you) had access to it as well. I thought you had made this
comment in an effort to justify your claims about the 'reasonableness'
of your *TCS* figures. If I just misunderstood you let's save the
bandwidth and just forget this particular point. (Everyone take note:
if you hear no more on this point it means *I* was mistaken!) :-)
> You asked this already. In the same letter. See above.
I kept asking this question because IMHO everyone was just saying we should
ignore the *5FW*/*RS* information merely because it contradicted *TCS*.
Being asked to accept that as a matter of faith was getting a little
tiring.
> There is *at least* a one-day "jump lag" between you posting a
> letter, and all the responses to it coming in.... and you asked this
> question already.
Good point. I'll try to keep this in mind and stay 'temporally
synchronized'. :-)
> > What about types/classes themselves? Is there some finer
> >breakdown than battles, cruisers, carriers, escorts, etc.?
>
> Yes. Tonnages are approximate, based on classes from Supplement 9,
> and from memory. Classes are usually based on size and intended use.
Here it is again folks: the Great TCS Schism! :-) (Please, don't flame
me TCS-ites! I really don't care whether there is or isn't a
breakdown. It's enough to know there is no clear answer.)
At least we've got a 'fictional' religious group to insult now! Curse
those blasted TCS-ites! May they rot on the *5FW* board map!
But seriously, this has been some good work. Thanks to everyone who
has contributed. Maybe we can develop a consistent system:
> And I have no idea what a Traveller Frigate would be good for
> (spatial equivalent?) In any case, the type names are chosen by the
> military based on intended use, not by the designer.
This is in line with what Les said above. Can we work out a series of
ship classes here based upon what he calls "real tactical employment"?
Peace,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA