OTU Only: Sword Worlds Admirals

[AlHazred]

So, my players are heading to the Sword Worlds in the year 1100, and I figured I'd look into canonical information on the Sword Worlds Confederate Navy just prior to the Fifth Frontier War. From the GDW Fifth Frontier War board game, we get three Admirals in the SWC roster; in order of precedence, they're:

1. Riksdatter
2. Eyolfsson
3. Tryggvesson

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no other canonical information on these characters in any primary sources. I find it intriguing because, by Sword Worlds convention, the highest Admiral by order of precedence is a woman, Riksdatter (although I suspect Mongoose writers would now style that "Riksdottir"), but the military is seen as primarily a male occupation. I found a reference to a campaign @Hemdian ran:

I used a vaguely similar idea in an old campaign but set in the Sword Worlds. It resulted in a civil war in the SW at the height of the 5FW and led to the formation of the Border Worlds.

In analysing the FFW boardgame counters (not the best source according to some) I figured there were 4 SW fleets but only 2 are accounted for in the game. A third, based at Narsil, fought against the Darrians. A fourth, based at Sacnoth, was supposed to defend the SW rear from the Imperial fleet at Glisten ... but instead the governing houses of Sacnoth opened negotiations with the Imperials which resulted in significantly disrupting the flow of key supplies to Admirals Riksdatter and Eyolfsson during their adventurism in the Lanth and Vilis subsectors. The battle at Sting between elements of the Sacnoth fleet and the Imperial fleet was a set up to purge elements loyal to the old guard.

The PCs were members of the 'odd job squad' in the Glisten fleet until they were shot down over Mithril. So most of the politics was a backdrop to what they were doing until a late-joining PC turned up playing a Major in the SZK (Sacnoth Army) who was also a minor SW noble on a diplomatic mission.

(This campaign was a long time ago when the only source of info on the SW was an old JTAS article.)

The 2 fleets he refers to are the Gram and Joyeuse Fleets; Hemdian adds the Sacnoth and Narsil Fleets. The most recent Mongoose Sword Worlds book has those four, and adds the Tizon, Dyrnwyn, Sting, and Biter Fleets, which feels like too many; the 3I has only six (seven?) fleets in the Spinward Marches at the start of the 5FW, and they've got a much larger population and resources to draw from.

I'd like to know if anyone else has used any of these characters in their campaigns, and ask if you wouldn't mind sharing the salient details as I craft them for my own campaign.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The 2 fleets he refers to are the Gram and Joyeuse Fleets; Hemdian adds the Sacnoth and Narsil Fleets. The most recent Mongoose Sword Worlds book has those four, and adds the Tizon, Dyrnwyn, Sting, and Biter Fleets, which feels like too many; the 3I has only six (seven?) fleets in the Spinward Marches at the start of the 5FW, and they've got a much larger population and resources to draw from.

Gram, Sacnoth and Narsil are all Industrialized worlds. They should DEFINITELY have their own fleets.
And by "fleets" here, I mean sufficient forces to launch expeditionary raids and fleet maneuvers outside their home star systems. These would be "offensive" fleets for the expansion of the Sword Worlds Confederation.

Any "other fleets" ought to be more "defensive" in nature and purpose, intended to secure the Confederation territories (so more of a system defense role). I would argue that only Population: 8 worlds ought to be capable of sustaining such (defensive) fleets.
Tizon, Anduril, Dyrnwyn and Hofud then become the logical home bases for such defensive fleets ... which also happens to align pretty decently with the perimeters of the Sword Worlds Confederation.

I would argue (in hindsight) that the "Joyeuse Fleet" only happened because of how the map for the 5FW board game was laid out (which truncated the Sword Worlds into only 4 worlds. For game balance reasons, the Sword Worlds faction "required" 2 fleets and Joyeuse was the only other world "in the right place" on the (arbitrarily) truncated map that might make sense.

Just as a simple matter of astrogation, it would have made more sense to send the Gram Fleet into the Vilis subsector and the Sacnoth Fleet (via Dyrnwyn) at Lanth. But ... because that's not how the game map was "shaped" ... that's not what happened(?).

 

[McPerth]

The 2 fleets he refers to are the Gram and Joyeuse Fleets; Hemdian adds the Sacnoth and Narsil Fleets.

Those four fleets appear in CT:SMC as the fleets fighting the FFW, so that makes them canonical...

According the same source, though, Narsil fleet was facing the Darrians (out of FFW game), but Sacnoth one was keeking the the Glisten front, so it should appear...

I guess other fleets are planetary fleet equivalents, but as Sword Worlds is a confederation, eahc planet would keep his oen.

the 3I has only six (seven?) fleets in the Spinward Marches at the start of the 5FW, and they've got a much larger population and resources to draw from.

Remember not all the SM are shown in the FFW game, so some fleets are out. According MT:RS, the Imperium keeps a numbered fleet at each subsector (as well as a reserve one), so, there should 11 numbered flets in SM, but some (e.g. those based on Mora, Trin or Fife Sisters subsectors) don't appear at the start of the game.

As for Aldmirals, I guess most FFW game names are just taken out of the hat, as just a few appeared in Traveller books and supplements, and some only as passing names (at least AFAIK)

 

[Grognard_1]

Can I just add, as a Dane, that the seemingly very chauvinistic attitude of the Sword Worlders is way out of line...

 

[AlHazred]

As for Aldmirals, I guess most FFW game names are just taken out of the hat, as just a few appeared in Traveller books and supplements, and some only as passing names (at least AFAIK)

In the board game, we have the following Admirals. All of them are in order of precedence (i.e., seniority and rank).

For the Imperium:

1. Liang ☆☆ planning 4, tactical -1
2. Shumii ☆☆ planning 1, tactical +1
3. Shanathar ☆☆ planning 4, tactical 0
4. Mtume ☆☆ planning 0, tactical +2
5. Goolanzoon ☆☆ planning 0, tactical +3
6. Santanocheev ☆☆ planning 4, tactical +1
7. Elphinstone ☆ planning 3, tactical 0
8. Ashiode ☆ planning 2, tactical +2
9. Djoulikian ☆ planning 4, tactical +3
10. Vasilyev ☆ planning 4, tactical +1
11. Duke of Regina Aledon ☆ planning 0, tactical 0
12. Romao ☆ planning 4, tactical +1
13. Stvi ☆ planning 1, tactical -1
14. Gascogne ☆ planning 4, tactical -1

Santanocheev and Aledon get later use in CT/MT, famously. A "Vice Admiral Elphinstone" appears in a number of TNS dispatches, possibly this list's Admiral Elphinstone's son (as Hans Rancke liked to have it).

For the Zhodani, we have the following:

1. Demiatl ☆☆ planning 3, tactical 0
2. Zdalenstabr ☆☆ planning 3, tactical +1
3. Killiantse'thas ☆☆ planning 2, tactical 0
4. Chteprnentlasche ☆☆ planning 3, tactical +1
5. Poliststlasche ☆☆ planning 2, tactical 0
6. Tlaplsofatl ☆ planning 0, tactical 0
7. Qianzhatl ☆ planning 3, tactical 0
8. Vlenizastl ☆ planning 1, tactical 0
9. Benshatl ☆ planning 1, tactical +3
10. Chienjistsbr ☆ planning 0, tactical +3
11. Province Governor Shtaliajtias ☆ planning 2, tactical -1
12. Trodranstabr ☆ planning 2, tactical +2
13. Shanstabr ☆ planning 2, tactical 0
14. Nivrnditlas ☆ planning 2, tactical +2

I thought I remembered Provincial Governor Shtaliajtias showing up elsewhere, but I may be misremembering. I know I used him in my earlier campaign, so that's where that might come from.

The following are the Vargr admirals:

1. Thurkhs ☆☆ planning 2, tactical +1
2. Drzaekh ☆ planning 4, tactical +1
3. Gvungugha ☆ planning 3, tactical +3

And the aforementioned Sword Worlds admirals:

1. Riksdatter ☆ planning 4, tactical +1
2. Eyolfsson ☆ planning 2, tactical +2
3. Tryggvesson ☆ planning 4, tactical +2

From a game mechanics standpoint, higher "tactical" rating gives a bonus to engagements, i.e. probably denotes higher Tactics skill. "Planning" number refers to the number of weeks ahead that admiral must set up their moves, where a lower number indicates an admiral who can react instantly to enemy action. It's noteworthy that Aledon isn't even the "best" Imperial admiral, as Mtume also has a planning of 0, but a tactical of +2.

There's the potential to allow for "meetings" in Sword Worlds space between the Vargr admirals and the Sword Worlders, with a Zhodani along as a monitor/coordinator.

 

[AlHazred]

Can I just add, as a Dane, that the seemingly very chauvinistic attitude of the Sword Worlders is way out of line...

I would take it with a grain of salt. The "traditional Terran culture" the Sword Worlders are trying to emulate is their interpretation of what that culture actually was. The troop transport Gram originally left Terra in -420 Imperial. That's the Terran year 4101 CE, three thousand years after the period they're trying to emulate. The Founders' priorities would dictate what elements they copied and how they referred to them. IMTU, the Sword Worlders most obsessed with "doctrinal purity" are only the most arch-conservative members; most of the populace is more cosmopolitan.

It reminds me of the scene in Futurama, where a museum in 3000 CE has a display showing George Washington and Abraham Lincoln fighting the Nazis, because the Past is always a foreign country. Another similar example is the character of "Ancient Egyptian religion" -- you're talking about a living religion that changed its understanding of its cosmology dramatically over its 4,000 year history, and yet people like to characterize god "X" or "Y" as one thing or another.

 

[McPerth]

The "traditional Terran culture" the Sword Worlders are trying to emulate is their interpretation of what that culture actually was.

Well, in general, the Solomani culture would be seen as quite wrong from the POV of current Terrans, so I guess those changes are not only for SW people...