"Age of Sail" vs OTU, how close are they really?

[zozotroll]

EDG, AoS pirates where not all that effective. You can get the idea that they where because they where around for a long time, but the individuals changed constantly. Most of them only lasted a year or two. But there where always more ready to give it a try, so it seems like they lasted a long time.

Another huge difference is value of cargo. In all travellers I have seen, cargos are cheap compared to ships. In much of the AoS, it is reversed, with long hual cargos worth much more than many ships.

 

[EDG]

look, I don't want to get into wikepedia bashing, but its a very general article at best, condensing about 500 years of history by discussing the last 50. You'll need to read a bit more about the period to get useful informatio with which to make a comparison - unless the point here is actually : "how is the OTU similar to a wikipedia article on ships".

Well, it's all I got at the moment. I'm not the one who's going around claiming that Traveller is supposed to be like the Age of Sail - I've seen plenty of other people saying that. I asked the question because even a cursory examination of a wiki article on the subject seemed to imply that the OTU was similar only in a few ways and was different in quite a lot of other ways. Maybe it was just influenced by a particular era of the AoS, I don't know, but if that's the case then which era? And again, what would the points of divergence be between the OTU and that era?

So is the comparison a valid one at all? The Age of Sail seems to include:

1 - international trade and naval warfare
2 - large human migrations
3 - long seagoing travel times
4 - communications limited to speed of travel
5 - exploration of the New World (the Americas and later Australia)
6 - trade and warfare being driven by nations, not individuals.
7 - the existence of viable piracy

I can see points of similarity with the OTU in points 1, 3, and 4, but the rest of the points seem to diverge from the OTU. In fact, I think the equivalent of "nations" that could possibly have their own navies only really exist as the Pocket Empires and Alien Empires outside the borders of the Imperium. I could see a lot more points of convergence there (which maybe is what makes the Spinward Marches more interesting), but within the Imperium's borders I think it's a different story.

age of sail is pre-1840 (pre steam and steel hulls); and is epitomized by the period of 1740 - 1817, the period of world wide near continuous war and colonial conflict between europeadn nations.

That seems rather different to the wiki site, which claims that it's from the 16th century to the mid 19th century. I could believe that the OTU was based on a specific era within that time period, but when I say Age of Sail here I'm referring to that entire time period from 1500s to 1800s - not just the latter half of it.

 

[rust]

That seems rather different to the wiki site, which claims that it's from the 16th century to the mid 19th century. I could believe that the OTU was based on a specific era within that time period, but when I say Age of Sail here I'm referring to that entire time period from 1500s to 1800s - not just the latter half of it.

This could become somewhat difficult, because the early Age of Sail and
the late Age of Sail have not much in common, except the fact that sai-
ling ships were used for trade and warfare.

While the late 1500s are still very close to the Middle Ages, the late 1800s
are already in the Industrial Age. Societies, their economies and technolo-
gies, probably changed too much during this long period of time to treat
it as a single "Age".

It is a bit like writing about an "Age of Horse", with the Huns at one end
of the period and the WW I cavalry at the other end ...

 

[Klaus Kipling]

The Age of Sail was TL3....

 

[EDG]

This could become somewhat difficult, because the early Age of Sail and the late Age of Sail have not much in common, except the fact that sailing ships were used for trade and warfare.

True... which means we need to establish which "Age of Sail" that the OTU is supposedly similar to .

 

[captainjack23]

Well, it's all I got at the moment. I'm not the one who's going around claiming that Traveller is supposed to be like the Age of Sail - I've seen plenty of other people saying that. I asked the question because even a cursory examination of a wiki article on the subject seemed to imply that the OTU was similar only in a few ways and was different in quite a lot of other ways. Maybe it was just influenced by a particular era of the AoS, I don't know, but if that's the case then which era? And again, what would the points of divergence be between the OTU and that era?

So is the comparison a valid one at all? The Age of Sail seems to include:

1 - international trade and naval warfare
2 - large human migrations
3 - long seagoing travel times
4 - communications limited to speed of travel
5 - exploration of the New World (the Americas and later Australia)
6 - trade and warfare being driven by nations, not individuals.
7 - the existence of viable piracy

I can see points of similarity with the OTU in points 1, 3, and 4, but the rest of the points seem to diverge from the OTU. In fact, I think the equivalent of "nations" that could possibly have their own navies only really exist as the Pocket Empires and Alien Empires outside the borders of the Imperium. I could see a lot more points of convergence there (which maybe is what makes the Spinward Marches more interesting), but within the Imperium's borders I think it's a different story.

Well, as for the age of sail (pre mid eighteenth century as per the article) and without arguing every issue, there are a few problems in trying to apply this general article to a specific period that may have inspired a game setting. Yes, the OTU is unlike the last days of sail (1890-1914); but I cant imagine that that is what the casual claims you reference about the OTU are based on -unless someone said " I read this WP article and was amazed at how similar to the OTU it is". My point is that the period one needs to look at is somewhat earlier than the bulk of the information presented in the WP article - as you ask.

One can say that its unlike the last days of the AOS, but its much like saying it is unlike modern day or the crusades period.

So, here's some comments about what you see as points of difference in the article:


1. Major migration periods started in the 1850s and onwards; they are not really characteristic of the pre steam age of sail.. So, this is similar to OTU.

2. The new world was mainly explored by the 1840's, as was australia and certainly both from a nautical perspective - heck from that perspective one could argue that by 1810 (but you'd need to do a bit of reading to make the point stick). In the OTU, the coasts and routes are all similarly charted as it were - the hinterlands are the areas that may still need exploration -much as in the OTU

3. Trade was driven by individuals and corporations -it was the great period of Laisses-faire economics. War was national, but it was also the last great age of the mercenary and filibuster - both much as in the OTU

4. Piracy wasn't really any more or less viable except for brief periods such as the late 16th century (govt sponsored); mid 16th century - (a sea going refugee society); a brief period in the 1700's (classic arr matey pirates) and a later period in the indian ocean - although, to be fair those were the european pirates - china, indonesia, micronesia all had constant low and high level seagoing brigandage. In all cases, it's cyclic - it starts being lucrative, then is crushed. Since there is no consensus about piracy in the OTU beyond authorial fiat, its moot anyway.

So, while there are good points of difference (slavery and Opium, as was mentioned, for example) those aren't them.

age of sail is pre-1840 (pre steam and steel hulls); and is epitomized by the period of 1740 - 1817, the period of world wide near continuous war and colonial conflict between european nations.

That seems rather different to the wiki site, which claims that it's from the 16th century to the mid 19th century. I could believe that the OTU was based on a specific era within that time period, but when I say Age of Sail here I'm referring to that entire time period from 1500s to 1800s - not just the latter half of it.

Well, as you said it's a cursory look at a short, generalized article. It's also not a very good article for the purposes of the comparison you're using it for, especially if, as you point out, its your only source of info on the issue.

There are lots of more detailed sources on line that are as easily accessable as the WP article. Use them if you don't have access to the books or a library.

 

[captainjack23]

[

This could become somewhat difficult, because the early Age of Sail and
the late Age of Sail have not much in common, except the fact that sai-
ling ships were used for trade and warfare.

While the late 1500s are still very close to the Middle Ages, the late 1800s
are already in the Industrial Age. Societies, their economies and technolo-
gies, probably changed too much during this long period of time to treat
it as a single "Age".

It is a bit like writing about an "Age of Horse", with the Huns at one end
of the period and the WW I cavalry at the other end ...

Yes, yes exactly ! Thanks ! A great example.

Too, perhaps, the term I think of is the gaming/military term "Age of Fighting Sail"

This makes the distinction from the later period, post 1840 or so, when all warships, iron or wood, fought under steam power, even if the used sail to cruise and conserve fuel. The distinction isn't nitpicky, either - fighting tactics changed radically once ships no longer had to worry about wind direction, and to a lesser extent, tide and currents.

 

[captainjack23]

This could become somewhat difficult, because the early Age of Sail and the late Age of Sail have not much in common, except the fact that sailing ships were used for trade and warfare.

True... which means we need to establish which "Age of Sail" that the OTU is supposedly similar to .

Well, can we agree for discussion that pre steam, and thus well before 1840 is going to be part of any such period ?

I'd suggest that the OTU has most similarity to the classic pre 1805 Napoleonic wars; the world is less monolithic in terms of naval powers, and trade routes, it's a bit more up in the air who will win, and there are lots of periods of truce and war. The whole semophore (sp ?) system is new, and within continental areas, more like the x-boats system(although that is stretching it).

The classic OTU of about 1105/5FW is, I think the closest match to the lmid napoleonic/post revolutionary Age of Fighting Sail, and I doubt that that's an accident.

Thats the period I'd see as being the cultural model for the OTU - if there was one, in fact. Has anyone ever run across a comment by one of the original writer/designers on the matter ?

Too, one can go back quite a ways from there to the Elizabethan period to inspire the IW period; a smaller ship universe, small plucky nations fighting monolithic empires, exploration, no peace over the line, and no pesky empty hex jumps to account for...ooops sorry....



Thoughts ?

 

[EDG]

1. Major migration periods started in the 1850s and onwards; they are not really characteristic of the pre steam age of sail.. So, this is similar to OTU.

Um, what about that whole "colonists going to the New World" thing? Surely there must have been a lot of people going to the east coast of North America between the 1500s and 1700s? Or to Australia in the lat 1700s? I thought that this was what the article was referring to when it was talking about migrations.

2. The new world was mainly explored by the 1840's, as was australia and certainly both from a nautical perspective - heck from that perspective one could argue that by 1810 (but you'd need to do a bit of reading to make the point stick). In the OTU, the coasts and routes are all similarly charted as it were - the hinterlands are the areas that may still need exploration -much as in the OTU

Again though, what about that period before the 1800s when it wasn't fully explored? There was loads of exploration going on then (including, apparently, Sir Francis Drake himself heading all the way around the Americas up to Vancouver Island and Alaska!). And of course there was a lot of exploration and conflict going on within the New World too, not just around the coasts... and that's largely ignored in Traveller too (as in, the planets are just considered to be ports, not a whole world to explore).

3. Trade was driven by individuals and corporations -it was the great period of Laisses-faire economics. War was national, but it was also the last great age of the mercenary and filibuster - both much as in the OTU

What individuals owned the big sailing ships though? A lot of the famous naval types I can think of (Cook, Drake, Nelson) were in the service of their kings or queens, I don't think they owned their ships did they? Again I think the pirates could have been said to own their ships but they had quite the high turnaround.

4. Piracy wasn't really any more or less viable except for brief periods such as the late 16th century (govt sponsored); mid 16th century - (a sea going refugee society); a brief period in the 1700's (classic arr matey pirates) and a later period in the indian ocean - although, to be fair those were the european pirates - china, indonesia, micronesia all had constant low and high level seagoing brigandage. In all cases, it's cyclic - it starts being lucrative, then is crushed. Since there is no consensus about piracy in the OTU beyond authorial fiat, its moot anyway.

Right, but the fact remains that piracy WAS viable at some points during the Age of Sail.

So, while there are good points of difference (slavery and Opium, as was mentioned, for example) those aren't them.

Not with the era that you're comparing them to, perhaps. But when I think "Age of Sail" I think more of the 1500s-1700s, not the 1800s. But I dunno, maybe Marc did have the late 1700s/early 1800s in mind. I think the earlier period would make for a much more interesting OTU though (maybe the IW era is more like that?).

I guess the weird thing is that the OTU is so damn static. Even in the IW era it's still got similar tropes - the only difference is that you have jump 1-3, not jump 4-6. The OTU's been stuck in an "Age of Sail" for literally thousands of years, whereas the realworld AoS only lasted a few hundred.

 

[captainjack23]

Um, what about that whole "colonists going to the New World" thing? Surely there must have been a lot of people going to the east coast of North America between the 1500s and 1700s? Or to Australia in the lat 1700s? I thought that this was what the article was referring to when it was talking about migrations.

Didn't say that. The article talks about the largest migrations in history - those occurred in the late part of the period and were far bigger -largely due to steamships and a massive number of hulls. Look up the numbers. They dwarf the colonist period.

Yes, probably immigration is (proportionally) less in the OTU than at many times in sail's history - Although, the period I assume didn't have much population movement.

Again though, what about that period before the 1800s when it wasn't fully explored? There was loads of exploration going on then (including, apparently, Sir Francis Drake himself heading all the way around the Americas up to Vancouver Island and Alaska!). And of course there was a lot of exploration and conflict going on within the New World too, not just around the coasts... and that's largely ignored in Traveller too (as in, the planets are just considered to be ports, not a whole world to explore).

That all is pre-Age of fighting sail by about two centuries. (1570's for Drake vs 1780ish for nap wars) By the time I suggest, the coasts were well charted, and most of the world mapped if not fully explored.

Should it be ignored ? Probably not, although the functions of the scout service seem pretty comparable to much of the hydrologic survey work being done in the 1800's (cook, darwin, etc)

What individuals owned the big sailing ships though? A lot of the famous naval types I can think of (Cook, Drake, Nelson) were in the service of their kings or queens, I don't think they owned their ships did they? Again I think the pirates could have been said to own their ships but they had quite the high turnaround.

Those three are all either Navy or working with the Navy. Few people in that line of work own their ships, after all. You'll have to trust me on this one, lots of civilian captains owned their ships -lots didn't, too, but that isn't the point.

Also, most of the people you mention did own ships - just not the ones the govt loaned them or gave them to fight. The key is that they were smaller or merchant ships -owning a large fighting ship is a losing proposition money wise, even if you have a letter o' marque (ask capt Kidd)

Right, but the fact remains that piracy WAS viable at some points during the Age of Sail.

And there are people who insist it is viable in the OTU.
Who am I to argue ? :twisted:

( Actually, and keep this under your hat, I'm not sure I buy it in the OTU on anything other than literary and space opera grounds.. )

That is a difference - but, not much of one. The Napoleonic wars had lots of privateers -LOTS of em, such as most of the the American navy -but few pirates in the trade routes - pirates don't wander around areas where hostile warships are shooting at anythng not flying a friendly flag.....

Bandits and Pirates in the great south sea, yes....but far from the fleets. FAAAAAR away.

So, while there are good points of difference (slavery and Opium, as was mentioned, for example) those aren't them.

Not with the era that you're comparing them to, perhaps. But when I think "Age of Sail" I think more of the 1500s-1700s, not the 1800s. But I dunno, maybe Marc did have the late 1700s/early 1800s in mind.

As Marc was and is a serious Wargamer and the others at GDW were also, along with hard core miniatures, and knowing the gaming community at the time, (and some of the playtesters at GDW at that time -Hi Ed !) I'd bet money that that was the case.

I think the earlier period would make for a much more interesting OTU though (maybe the IW era is more like that?).

Fair enough, but the 1500s to early 1600s are another large jump in nautical culture and use. It really settled down for quite a while after about 1620 or so ( the 30 years war was a major cultural watershed in lots of ways, as well as an epic disaster for much of Europe, culturally so where it wasn't physically so).

Honestly, the world of the early mid 1600s wasn't that different from the world of the late Napoleonicesque wars - the fall of kings and clash of kingdoms-, which includes the period of the seven years war onward, really. . Ships certainly changed some in size, and guns got bigger, but all were used in ways that someone from 1640 could step up and understand right up to Waterloo (or Trafalgar).

Hell, the Brits were using the same infantry musket for the whole period, I beleive - one hundred + years without a major alteration in tactics or equipment.....talk about stasis...

And, yes, I also think that the Elizabethan seadogs, seabeggars and Poxy Dons period is really really cool. What would be more like that is the VArgr side of the fall of the Vilanii empire. Warfare, piracy, and exploration ? There you have it all.

In some ways, I think the IW period is less of Elizabethan england vs Spain, than it is American colonies vs England (and Colonial Europe in general); it has less of the "wide open exploration while firing broadsides" feel than Drakes period.

I guess the weird thing is that the OTU is so damn static. Even in the IW era it's still got similar tropes - the only difference is that you have jump 1-3, not jump 4-6. The OTU's been stuck in an "Age of Sail" for literally thousands of years, whereas the realworld AoS only lasted a few hundred.

Well, yeah. The tech stasis is always something that I have to just grit my teeth and willfully ignore - but then, I do it willingly, because I feel it's part of what makes traveller traveller <-not an invitation for a what is traveller discussion, just my own dogheaded opinion. The frozen empire, or "final limits to progress" are both major SF Tropes, moreso in Space opera, granted.


By the way - this is fun, not yelling at each other....you bastard.

 

[Shiloh]

look, I don't want to get into wikepedia bashing, but its a very general article at best, condensing about 500 years of history by discussing the last 50. You'll need to read a bit more about the period to get useful informatio with which to make a comparison - unless the point here is actually : "how is the OTU similar to a wikipedia article on ships".

Well, it's all I got at the moment.

You've been given some general pointers. A brief Google on Age of Sail threw up this bibliography that you might find helpful.

http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/pob/

...even a cursory examination of a wiki article on the subject seemed to imply that the OTU was similar only in a few ways...

A cursory examination of a dophin would probably lead you to conclude that it was a fish if you didn't know better. Beware of cursory examinations.

...Maybe it was just influenced by a particular era...but...which era?

A number of posts have suggested an era. There's not much point posting a question if you aren't going to read the answers.

So is the comparison a valid one at all? The Age of Sail...

...as referenced in that one article...

...seems...

...operative word, I think...

to include:

2 - large human migrations

The article says "expansive", i.e. "from Europe to everywhere in the world", not "large". It took three hundred years, give or take, for America to go from "discovered by Columbus" to "independent power". Even at the end of the colonial period, the number of migrants to places other than America was pretty small compared to indigenous populations. There are exceptions in the Antipodes, but I can't think of others.

The intestinal fortitude required to migrate across the Atlantic by sailship was not available "en masse". The risks and privations involved precluded "mass migrations". The only large movement of people going on in the "classic" (30 years either side of 1800) AoS was slaves from Africa to the New World.

5 - exploration of the New World (the Americas and later Australia)

Not in the Imperium, on quite the same curve, at any rate, but Human Space is much bigger tha the Imperium, and I'm sure there are explorers out there. Exploration RPGs aren't too much fun, generally, though, on a long term basis, and there's still plenty of room for discoveries in the Spinward Marches, even.

6 - trade and warfare being driven by nations, not individuals.

At the scale of a PC, of course everything is driven by individuals. but if you read about Megacorporations, you'll see that they are intrinsically bound up with the structure of the Imperium, and are the major carriers of tonnage, just as the East India Companies were. The Spinward Marches book consistently refers to the smaller, more "nimble" small traders as filling in the gaps left by the large concerns.

Warfare, too, is driven by the interstellar polities. Were the Frontier Wars, the Civil Wars or the ISW driven by individuals? You can even see parallels between France and Britain in the straitly-controlled Zhodani (yes, they're a lot less fallible and more sugar-coated than the informants of France) and the free-wheeling Imperium.

7 - the existence of viable piracy

Piracy is as viable in the OTU as it was IRL, which is to say: variably and depending on who you read. For my money, a straight OTU makes piracy very difficult to execute, just through the simple volumes of space and poxy accelerations available to all ships. 100D is a massive shell to patrol if your victim can pop in randomly anywhere on its surface and you only have a Gee or 2 advantage to overtake before they reach covered space. Of course, this same problem also applies to anti-piracy patrols.

There aren't enough well-used, unguarded choke points, for my mind, to make piracy a very profitable career. But then again, should it be commonly profitable? Probably not. It's a last resort for scum and villains, not a golden path to fortune and retirement.

I can see points of similarity with the OTU in points 1, 3, and 4...

So I've not come back to them.

...the rest of the points seem to diverge from the OTU...

As has been said before, only significantly in that "cursory" wikipedia article. You do know that Wikipedia is far from authoritative, I trust.

I think the equivalent of "nations" that could possibly have their own navies only really exist as the Pocket Empires and Alien Empires outside the borders of the Imperium.

Which, you must admit, just means that they *do* exist in the OTU. It's just that most people don't feel the need to play outisde the Imperium. What you're seeing here is an artefact of the need to generate interesting RP scenarios.

I could see a lot more points of convergence there (which maybe is what makes the Spinward Marches more interesting), but within the Imperium's borders I think it's a different story.

So the problem is that one bit, and not even all of that, doesn't fit with your first read of a wikipedia stub. Goody. That's not much of an issue then, is it?

age of sail is pre-1840 (pre steam and steel hulls); and is epitomized by the period of 1740 - 1817...

That seems rather different to the wiki site, which claims that it's from the 16th century to the mid 19th century.

That wikipedia article is broadly correct. As has already been pointed out, it is so broad as to be a useless correctess for any sort of comparison given the massive changes which occurred over that large period.

I could believe that the OTU was based on a specific era within that time period, but when I say Age of Sail here I'm referring to that entire time period from 1500s to 1800s - not just the latter half of it.

So you want people to say "OTU is the same as that entire period"? When you've already accepted that things changed in that long timespan?

Perhaps we can agree, for the sake of this thread at least, to refer to the "Classic Age of Sail" when we're talking about the era of Cochrane and Nelson and Hornblower and Aubrey, which has the closest parallels to the OTU, especially since "Golden Age of Sail" has at least three definitions, according to the stub.

Edit: typos and formatting.

 

[rust]

Meanwhile I have had the time to read this thread again, and to look at
some of my books on naval history and similar subjects, and I have co-
me to a somewhat "split" opinion.

To me, it seems that the "civilian" side of the OTU (trade, piracy, etc.) is
somewhat like the earlier Age of Sail, perhaps the time around 1650, whi-
le the "naval" side of the OTU (specialized warships, size of fleets, etc.)
is more like the early 1800s.

But, frankly, this is just an opinion (if not a gut feeling), and I am really
not sure whether it makes sense.

 

[zozotroll]

Well it certainly makes sense to me. Like they took elements from different parts of the whole age and tacked them all togather.

It is not like somebody was going to whack Marc on the knuckles with a ruler and say stop mixing periods.

 

[EDG]

Well it certainly makes sense to me. Like they took elements from different parts of the whole age and tacked them all togather.

Looks like it...

 

[captainjack23]

Well it certainly makes sense to me. Like they took elements from different parts of the whole age and tacked them all togather.

Looks like it...

Of course, that isn't a criticism. The goal was to have a game period that would produce a good game, not mirror exactly a historical period, and one can easily argue that the success of traveller and the OTU as an ongoing entity suggests that it was a successful effort ; of course if they had exactly mirrored one period, one can only imagine that they would be being lambasted for "ripping off" the genre.

And yes, I think rusts suggestion of 1650's merchantile life combined with later military life does seem to fit the bill. And, it not that much of a stretch. Again, 1650 isn;t all that differnt technologically,economically or culturally from the late 1700's. There were lots of places in the world with a more " merchant advenurer ethos" than Europes megacorporation - some as close as spain, the near east and north africa......

 

[captainjack23]

Perhaps we can agree, for the sake of this thread at least, to refer to the "Classic Age of Sail" when we're talking about the era of Cochrane and Nelson and Hornblower and Aubrey, which has the closest parallels to the OTU, especially since "Golden Age of Sail" has at least three definitions, according to the stub.

Excellent discussion Shiloh, and not just because it agrees with mine ! ! Good to have some other age o' sail geeks here... !

 

[zozotroll]

You call yourself an age of sail geek and you havent mentioned Ned Pellew even once.

 

[GamerDude]

Perhaps we can agree, for the sake of this thread at least, to refer to the "Classic Age of Sail" when we're talking about the era of Cochrane and Nelson and Hornblower and Aubrey, which has the closest parallels to the OTU, especially since "Golden Age of Sail" has at least three definitions, according to the stub.

Excellent discussion Shiloh, and not just because it agrees with mine ! ! Good to have some other age o' sail geeks here... !

Shilo, rust, and CaptJack let me say thanks for an excellent discussion. You've put forth in a very clear way some wonderful information.

Keep it coming.

 

[rust]

Shilo, rust, and CaptJack let me say thanks for an excellent discussion.

If you want to attack EDG in an indirect way, please leave me out of it.
I somewhat dislike being used for other's personal feuds. Thanks.

 

[GamerDude]

Shilo, rust, and CaptJack let me say thanks for an excellent discussion.

If you want to attack EDG in an indirect way, please leave me out of it.
I somewhat dislike being used for other's personal feuds. Thanks.

I am NOT attacking edg, in fact I pretty much don't care what he posts I for the most part just move right past it...

But I do actually like what you guys have posted, I'm learning from it even though I don't have anything to add or the time to do a bunch of research just so I can find something to add.