Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Numbering subsector Fleets is T20 canon for the imperial navy, so I have no doubt the 17th fleet mentioned in all Solomani Rim war histories is a heavily reinforced subsector fleet.
Suggestion for a TA: Ships of the Solomani
- Thread starter cmdrx
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I'm entering the MT Rebellion Sourcebook fleet data now. Its circa 1116 but shouldn't be much different a mere century earlier
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Numbered Fleets will have between 2 and 10 squadrons*, a total of between 50 and 200 ships. Numbered Fleets are commanded by Fleet Admirals and may have a name designation but not be a Named Fleet.
* The Imperium only employees five basic squadron types: BatRons, CruRons, ScoutRons, AssaultRons and TankRons.
Diaspora Sector Numbered Fleets by subsector:
298, 135, 198, 93
94, 95, 297, 170
11, 21, 22, 169
49, 136, 299, 103
Now MT is famous for its errata so that may be wrong. I don't see a 17th there unless the 170th is a typo in either MT or your source. I do see a 17th in subsector A of Ley sector though so maybe there were some fleet reassignments over that century
* The Imperium only employees five basic squadron types: BatRons, CruRons, ScoutRons, AssaultRons and TankRons.
Diaspora Sector Numbered Fleets by subsector:
298, 135, 198, 93
94, 95, 297, 170
11, 21, 22, 169
49, 136, 299, 103
Now MT is famous for its errata so that may be wrong. I don't see a 17th there unless the 170th is a typo in either MT or your source. I do see a 17th in subsector A of Ley sector though so maybe there were some fleet reassignments over that century
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Thanks for that Dan. I don't know how much use this will be because it is 100 years past the end of the Rim War, but if people think I need to follow these subsector fleet numbers, I will.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
As a small "c" canonista (hey! who's spitting?) count me as one who is not the least bit worried either way. Like you say its 100 years, things could change. I only posted it as one piece of the puzzle. Contradictions are rife in the materials so don't sweat it imo.
Michael Taylor explained:
"I don't know how much use this will be because it is 100 years past the end of the Rim War, but if people think I need to follow these subsector fleet numbers, I will."
Mr. Taylor,
Let me begin again...
I'm very glad to hear that there'll be a TA for the Solomani Confederation Navy. When you consider the setting of T20; the Solomani Rim War Mileau, its a natural. It will also be nice to see a navy that doesn't belong to the Third Imperium detailed for once.
You've mentioned a 17th fleet in Diaspora subsector. Be sure and check all canonical data; CT, MT, TNE, T4, G:T, and T20. Traveller library data over the last 25 years is rather contradictory in places. You may have to 'explain' the presence of that fleet in that region especially if the presence of that fleet hasn't been mentioned before.
Have a good explanation and there'll be no problems. Have a lousy explanation and there will be problems. Check out the complete re-write of the Fifth Frontier War for GT:Behind the Claw for example. The description of the FFW in that product paid no heed to any library data and descriptions that came before. GT:BtC; a good product overall, has suffered greatly for it.
I am not a canonista. Players and GMs should only pay attention to those bits of canon that assist their campaigns. However, as one published Traveller writer put it once; Canon is for authors. Guess what? By writing a TA for publicaton, you are now an author. It is now your duty to consider what had come before. Please note; I said consider and not copy. There is a great difference. You needn't use the data but you do need to be aware of it.
If you're going to be writing about Ivan Wolfe's early career, if you're going to be writing about the battles and campaigns that made him the savior of the Confederation, if you're going to create canon, you better get it right. Otherwise, your TA joins T4, GT:BtC, Judges Guild, and all the other Traveller bits that people acknowledge exist and then usually ignore.
So, thanks to Mr. Burns, we now know that the 17th Fleet isn't mentioned in MT's Rebellion Sourcebook. That doesn't mean anything however as the Rebellion is over 100 years in the future from your TA. The 17th could have been in Diaspora in the 990s only to be destroyed or redeployed during the ensuing war. A small 'throw away' line in your TA would cover that, something about both pre-war IN and SCN organizations moving, melding, and merging during the shock of war into different post-war assignments and names.
As I said earlier, you don't need to use what came before. You do need to be aware of it however.
BTW, any idea of when the TA will be available?
Sincerely,
Larsen
"I don't know how much use this will be because it is 100 years past the end of the Rim War, but if people think I need to follow these subsector fleet numbers, I will."
Mr. Taylor,
Let me begin again...
I'm very glad to hear that there'll be a TA for the Solomani Confederation Navy. When you consider the setting of T20; the Solomani Rim War Mileau, its a natural. It will also be nice to see a navy that doesn't belong to the Third Imperium detailed for once.
You've mentioned a 17th fleet in Diaspora subsector. Be sure and check all canonical data; CT, MT, TNE, T4, G:T, and T20. Traveller library data over the last 25 years is rather contradictory in places. You may have to 'explain' the presence of that fleet in that region especially if the presence of that fleet hasn't been mentioned before.
Have a good explanation and there'll be no problems. Have a lousy explanation and there will be problems. Check out the complete re-write of the Fifth Frontier War for GT:Behind the Claw for example. The description of the FFW in that product paid no heed to any library data and descriptions that came before. GT:BtC; a good product overall, has suffered greatly for it.
I am not a canonista. Players and GMs should only pay attention to those bits of canon that assist their campaigns. However, as one published Traveller writer put it once; Canon is for authors. Guess what? By writing a TA for publicaton, you are now an author. It is now your duty to consider what had come before. Please note; I said consider and not copy. There is a great difference. You needn't use the data but you do need to be aware of it.
If you're going to be writing about Ivan Wolfe's early career, if you're going to be writing about the battles and campaigns that made him the savior of the Confederation, if you're going to create canon, you better get it right. Otherwise, your TA joins T4, GT:BtC, Judges Guild, and all the other Traveller bits that people acknowledge exist and then usually ignore.
So, thanks to Mr. Burns, we now know that the 17th Fleet isn't mentioned in MT's Rebellion Sourcebook. That doesn't mean anything however as the Rebellion is over 100 years in the future from your TA. The 17th could have been in Diaspora in the 990s only to be destroyed or redeployed during the ensuing war. A small 'throw away' line in your TA would cover that, something about both pre-war IN and SCN organizations moving, melding, and merging during the shock of war into different post-war assignments and names.
As I said earlier, you don't need to use what came before. You do need to be aware of it however.
BTW, any idea of when the TA will be available?
Sincerely,
Larsen
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
In the Gateway sourcebook MJD mentions a few times that Imperial fleets from the Gateway Domain have been sent to fight in the Solomani Rim War, so perhaps the 17th does come from Ley after all.Originally posted by Dan "far-trader" Burns:
I do see a 17th in subsector A of Ley sector though so maybe there were some fleet reassignments over that century
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
17th fleet is mentioned in GDW's Solomani Alien Module 6, 1986 by Marc Miller. I only suggested using it because it was the only fleet number (other than the 1st, also from the same publication) which I knew about. I personally don;t care what number I use, just so long as I dont use a fleet that was sitting in Core or Spinward Marches or somewhere else in 990.
As for timing, it'll come out as fast as I can finish it. I'm 10,000 words into it so I'm getting there.
The publication won't be held up by me, it will be the artwork that will take the time. I'm aiming to finish it in 10 days. And Martin knows I will deliver, because I've delivered to him before within self-imposed deadlines.
As for the battles, I know there will be massive differences betwene the outcomes of HG and T20 battles, so I'm thinking of just writing it how I see fit.
As for timing, it'll come out as fast as I can finish it. I'm 10,000 words into it so I'm getting there.
The publication won't be held up by me, it will be the artwork that will take the time. I'm aiming to finish it in 10 days. And Martin knows I will deliver, because I've delivered to him before within self-imposed deadlines.
As for the battles, I know there will be massive differences betwene the outcomes of HG and T20 battles, so I'm thinking of just writing it how I see fit.
Michael Taylor wrote:
"I personally don't care what number I use, just so long as I dont use a fleet that was sitting in Core or Spinward Marches or somewhere else in 990."
Mr. Taylor,
That's fine. You're just making sure, that's all.
"The publication won't be held up by me, it will be the artwork that will take the time."
Ah. Well here's hoping the artwork is as good as your prose.
"As for the battles, I know there will be massive differences betwene the outcomes of HG and T20 battles, so I'm thinking of just writing it how I see fit."
Fair enough. Thanks for the answers!
Sincerely,
Larsen
"I personally don't care what number I use, just so long as I dont use a fleet that was sitting in Core or Spinward Marches or somewhere else in 990."
Mr. Taylor,
That's fine. You're just making sure, that's all.
"The publication won't be held up by me, it will be the artwork that will take the time."
Ah. Well here's hoping the artwork is as good as your prose.
"As for the battles, I know there will be massive differences betwene the outcomes of HG and T20 battles, so I'm thinking of just writing it how I see fit."
Fair enough. Thanks for the answers!
Sincerely,
Larsen
I'd suggest using HG or TCS to do the battles as the T20 ship system, while great for role playing on smaller ships, is a bit skewed when it comes to capital ship combat (He who fails initiative gets vaped instantly). See the thread on capital ships in the Fleet section here on CotI. TAs are compatible with both T20 and CT anyway.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Another option would be use the ship counters and combat rules from Invasion:Earth to play out the fleet engagements.
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Invasion Earth apparnetly only has SDB's and monitors on the Solomani side so wont be of much use in these battles.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The monitors are Battle Riders I think, because it mentions the Solomani Transports jumped away. It also has BR printed on the pieces . Oddly enough the Imperial units appear to be a mix of BR and CR.
. Oddly enough the Imperial units appear to be a mix of BR and CR.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Another idea, adapt the pieces from Fifth Frontier War.
Or, final suggestion (honest), the T4 supplement Pocket Empires includes rules for building fleets and rating them in a manner similar to I:E and FFW.
Hmm, maybe QLI shold investigate doing a full Solomani Rim War war game similar to FFW or Dark Nebula.
Or, final suggestion (honest), the T4 supplement Pocket Empires includes rules for building fleets and rating them in a manner similar to I:E and FFW.
Hmm, maybe QLI shold investigate doing a full Solomani Rim War war game similar to FFW or Dark Nebula.
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Question for anyone - config 7 ships (open structure) are able to launch all their small craft in 1 turn in High Guard. Is this the same with T20 rules, since HG and T20 starship are almost identical?
Mike
Mike
Similar threads
