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

[EDG]

It's often been said that Traveller's supposed to be like the "Age of Sail" in space, but what exactly is that supposed to mean?

The obvious parts are the long travel times and communications limited to the speed of travel - that much I get. But is there much else in the OTU that shares a similarity to the Age of Sail?

Wikipedia has a small article on the AoS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Sail

I guess that the trade ships of the OTU can carry a comparable amount of stuff to the old clippers of the high seas, and maybe the trade is about as speculative (I dunno, is it? I have no idea how trade worked in the Age of Sail. As far as I know it largely consisted of taking stuff from the New World and bringing it back to the Old).

One thing I find interesting about the wiki article is that it mentioned large population movements... which is something we don't see much in the OTU (or if it's there, it's hardly mentioned). The only things like this that I can recall are the colony ships that the Solomani sent out around the Long Night (some of which ended up founding the Sword Worlds). But it's certainly not a big part of the game in its 'modern' era.

Another thing is that in the OTU, planets aren't really treated as such. Instead the starport and its environs are important, but everything else on the planet is pretty poorly defined. Maybe that was the case in the AoS too, but it's almost like the OTU is the equivalent of a massive archipelago of thousands of tiny islands with ports, rather than of big nations sending out large navies everywhere.

And how many individuals really did own their own clippers in the AoS? I guess pirates did, but how many private individuals did? I thought most trade ships were owned by countries, not individuals.

So how similar is the OTU to the Age of Sail really, if you did a side-by-side comparison?

 

[far-trader]

I should probably read that link before wading in, my memory of AoS paradigms is probably getting rusty (no, not personal experience memory, I'm not quite that old just history interest memory)...

A lot of it depends on your vision of the OTU as well.

Long voyages and slow communication yes, and stuff that goes with it, like independence (rule of man not laws and all), self reliance (personal defense and such).

To a degree the chivalric code and nobility of the age as well, and imo the fading of it in favor of the rule of law though that doesn't really show up in the OTU.

For the small ship OTU (pre-HG) the ships make a fair comparison to sailing ships. And I think the percentages of privately owned ships (Coasters in AoS/Free Traders in OTU) to corporate owned ships (Clippers in AoS/Subbies in OTU) to government owned ships (Warships in AoS/Cruisers in OTU) feels about right.

Some private ships, but usually owned by someone the Captain has to pay (loans and charters). Some subsidized ships. But no private warships except occasional pirates. And yes I'm sure pirates in the OTU are there because of the AoS influence. It makes mercenary ships harder to justifiy, but not impossible. Mercenary soldiers were big in the AoS, often serving on government ships and in government armies. That's the way I've treated mercenary ships in MTU/OTU. Government owned ships with hired soldiers.

The AoS speculative trade is more like the Book 7 trade (should be)* while the more common coasters model of AoS trade is like the Book 2 trade.

* If you want to roll that much speculative cargo it should involve a long run, several jumps at least, to a distant market so the items are truly rare to the port you start in and hope to return to with a hold full of very valuable items, if somebody doesn't beat you to it. A trip that could easily take at least a year. With your hold filled with items you hope to sell in that distant foreign port for a like huge profit for their rarity there. So no trading along the way. A big investment at the start (probably needing financial backing from a big operation) and a long time to the payoff, but if you're lucky what a payoff, enough maybe to buy the ship and truly be your own master.

Depending on how you define the population movements it could be seen as large. And those hell holes with huge populations are temporary, the result of conditions going sour and an exodus is in the making. It's there to make it if you want it.

I do kind of see the planets as islands more than nations. The nations are the big polities. All the nations care about are keeping the ports in their nation "nationalized" and whatever the natives want to do is their business, as long as it doesn't interfere with the port. So on that point I see the similarities.

But any similarities will depend on the knowledge and perception of both the AoS and the OTU of the person applying the specifics. I'm not even sure I've consciously applied AoS to the OTU for MTU. Any similarities are probably just because I liked a certain "feel" for something and it happened to be more like AoS than some other genre.

 

[Shiloh]

It's often been said that Traveller's supposed to be like the "Age of Sail" in space, but what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Caveat: my sources are largely historical fiction (Patrick O'Brian books, the Hornblower miniseries, The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, all of which I recommend) gaming rules of various kinds, odd bits of actual historical reading and picking the brains of those who've done a bit more actual research...

The obvious parts are the long travel times and communications limited to the speed of travel

One dissimilarity is that it is more difficult to "stumble across" stuff in OTU, because of the mechanics of travel and the sheer vastness of space. Another is the endurance of most vessels: even a scoutship doesn't carry supplies enough for an extended wilderness cruise.

...trade ships of the OTU can carry a comparable amount of stuff to the old clippers of the high seas, and maybe the trade is about as speculative (I dunno, is it? I have no idea how trade worked in the Age of Sail. As far as I know it largely consisted of taking stuff from the New World and bringing it back to the Old).

A quick link to an article about triangle trade:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Economics-101:-Triangle-Trade&id=153190

to save my typing fingers...

Another thing is that in the OTU, planets aren't really treated as such. Instead the starport and its environs are important, but everything else on the planet is pretty poorly defined. Maybe that was the case in the AoS too, but it's almost like the OTU is the equivalent of a massive archipelago of thousands of tiny islands with ports, rather than of big nations sending out large navies everywhere.

I think rather it's like the seagoing folk largely being interested in the ports and littoral rather than the hinterlands. Naval charts didn't map beyond where you could sail.

And how many individuals really did own their own clippers in the AoS? I guess pirates did, but how many private individuals did? I thought most trade ships were owned by countries, not individuals.

You could consider the various nation-supported "East India" (and elsewhere) companies to be equivalent to the Imperium's megacorporations, to an extent, though the megas have their fingers in a wider range of pies. They did run a heck of a lot of hulls.

Lots of ships were owned by "companies" which were a group of private individuals who clubbed together to buy shares in a ship and take a share in any profits it made. I imagine a proportion of the successful speculators would eventually graduate to sole ownership of a ship and its cargo, though the advantage of taking shares is that the risk is distributed and even if you could afford 100% shares, it would be foolhardy to stake them all on one venture, given the high degree of risk.

And there is another difference between OTU and AoS: space travel in OTU within the Imperium is very safe indeed, when you're talking about actual hazzards to shipping, life and limb. Financial risk in OTU might be larger since markets may be less predictable, but our cargo isn't *very* likely to be lost to wreck or pirates unless you go somewhere "adventurous". The impression I get is that may be a quarter to a third of shipping ventures met with some sort of disaster.

So how similar is the OTU to the Age of Sail really, if you did a side-by-side comparison?

I think it's mostly only a very general similarity, largely depending on the impossibility of immediate resupply/relief/rescue to build a sense of isolation and independent action.

 

[captainjack23]

It's often been said that Traveller's supposed to be like the "Age of Sail" in space, but what exactly is that supposed to mean?<snip>
So how similar is the OTU to the Age of Sail really, if you did a side-by-side comparison?

Well, as the article points out, part of the issue is which "age of sail". But first, a caveat:


If we want to discuss this, we're going to have to be tolerant of odd terminology - and corrections of same by some of us- Sailing jargon has changed since its inception (often 500 years in the past), and has become extremely specialized and poorly understood, particularly nowadays. Its not nitpickery, but rather actual technical differences that matter to a technology which is largely gone.

So, if someone points out that a howitzer isn't the same as an AT gun (say) or alternately that Sol and a white Dwarf are while technically both dwarfs, are in fact vastly dfferent (say), we'll need to not bitch about the level of specificity and nitpickery if we want to get anywhere.

As an example: clippers. Clippers were very specialized sailing ships, and the term isn't a generic one for merchant ships, and they aren't comparable to the small PC scale merchants in any way. They were the fastest carriers on the planet, and the cutting edge of sail tech and built for economy of size and purpose. - no pirate ever owned one, nor did any individual captain - they would be more comprable to 100K dton jump 4+ carriers with huge 6G rated M drives.

(no offense EDG, just using the actual content as an example. Most people mostly know about clippers from Typhoo boxes and bottles of cutty sark...)

 

[captainjack23]

So, to get back on topic, post caveat.....

The golden age of sail is the period that includes the clippers you mention...and is remarkably short, and really covers the 1830's to early 1860's. This era already has rapidly changing technology, widespread faster than ship transmission (telegraph), alternate power (steam/IC), and the demise of both the massive broadside ship and national fleets with hundreds of capital ships.. In many ways, it's far closer to us today than not.

That period is the technological golden age of sail; what I think of as the model for the OTU is the one that applies to most wargaming, which would be the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras.

There we have the communication delays (there were sephomore systems, granted, and land post), the vast fleets and vast ships, the great game of empire, the mostly charted but less well mapped playing field, speculative trade with wild swings of fortune due to communication lags, pirates, privateers, colonies, rebellions, heroic adventurers (Hornblower, Aubrey, and in real life Cochran, Nelson and others)...etc etc. It's also before the period of massive emmigration by sea began.

And.....stasis. The ships at the beginning were only incrementally different from the ones at the beginning, and generally only interms of weaponry. Science advanced, but in a very leisurely fashion from the perspective of the world as a whole - and with vast differentials at different places.

Sound familiar ?

There are arguments that even earlier sail eras may fit even better, Dutch wars, and all the way back to the Armada period - but for my money, those are much more frontier & exploration periods - and more like the IW period, in fact.

But for a semi-static mostly civilized technologically-diverse setting, the late 1760's to 1820 ish pretty much fits the bill.

I can say more, believe me, but I'll take a break.

 

[EDG]

By point of comparison, from the brief research I've done it seems that AoS Clippers had a cargo capacity of a few hundred tons (in nautical terms I think 1 ton = 1 cubic metre?), galleons could hold up to a couple of thousand, and the windjammers of the late AoS could hold up to 5000 tons.

 

[EDG]

As an example: clippers. Clippers were very specialized sailing ships, and the term isn't a generic one for merchant ships, and they aren't comparable to the small PC scale merchants in any way. They were the fastest carriers on the planet, and the cutting edge of sail tech and built for economy of size and purpose. - no pirate ever owned one, nor did any individual captain - they would be more comprable to 100K dton jump 4+ carriers with huge 6G rated M drives.

(no offense EDG, just using the actual content as an example. Most people mostly know about clippers from Typhoo boxes and bottles of cutty sark...)

Yes, I discovered that about clippers after I wrote my post (I thought it was a generic term for sailing ship), so replace that term with whatever was the usual type of trading ship (galleon? I dunno, I'm not familiar with ship types!).

 

[EDG]

Sound familiar ?

Yeah, I'm familiar with that, because that's what most people talk about when they discuss the AoS and the OTU. But it seems that there's a lot about the AoS that's dissimilar that tends to get overlooked too, to the point that I wonder if it's even accurate to say that the OTU was really influenced by that or if it's better to just say that it just happens to share some similar features with that era.

 

[captainjack23]

Yes, I discovered that about clippers after I wrote my post (I thought it was a generic term for sailing ship), so replace that term with whatever was the usual type of trading ship (galleon? I dunno, I'm not familiar with ship types!).

...worse choice, actually - specialized and obsolete by the 1700's....but that's fine, its specialized knowledge - just use "merchantman" and all will be good.

 

[captainjack23]

By point of comparison, from the brief research I've done it seems that AoS Clippers had a cargo capacity of a few hundred tons (in nautical terms I think 1 ton = 1 cubic metre?), galleons could hold up to a couple of thousand, and the windjammers of the late AoS could hold up to 5000 tons.

I think the nautical displacement to traveller displacement is like, 5:1 for unarmored modern ships - (Ken Pick wrote a good article somewhere on the internet)

Keep in mind that comparisons for IRL/OTU cargo size is valid only if one compares it to the smallest tramp merchants of the same IRL period...which might hold less than 5 tonnes of cargo

 

[captainjack23]

Sound familiar ?

Yeah, I'm familiar with that, because that's what most people talk about when they discuss the AoS and the OTU. But it seems that there's a lot about the AoS that's dissimilar that tends to get overlooked too, to the point that I wonder if it's even accurate to say that the OTU was really influenced by that or if it's better to just say that it just happens to share some similar features with that era.

Well, the easiest way to determine influence wold be to ask Lauren or Marc or any of that lot about it, I suppose. I would note that the Mid seventies was also a golden age for age of sail wargames, for what it's worth; we all were playing them back then -so I'm sure they were too....


Possibly, you could discuss what you see as the points of divergence that are overlooked ?

 

[EDG]

Possibly, you could discuss what you see as the points of divergence that are overlooked ?

I mentioned a few - the general lack of massive population movement, planets as ports rather than as great unexplored territories (like the New World was in the AoS), ship ownership, lack of large powerful navies (again I don't think the Imperial Navy is a good equivalent of the national navies of the AoS). Then there's also the fact that pirates seemed to survive quite well in the AoS but apparently (depending on who you ask) can't in the OTU.

 

[rust]

While there doubtless are similarities between the (late, I think) Age of
Sail and a Traveller setting, there are also major differences.

Just think of the people involved, the crews. Starship crews are much
smaller than sailing ship crews, the crew members need a theoretical
education (often at a university, I think - for example all engineers),
and their salaries are a much bigger part of the ship's expenses.

Then, you had fewer competitors and a simpler market in the Age of
Sail.
In fact, the best markets were monopolies, with only one single "line"
allowed to trade on the route, and warships enforcing the monopoly.
Competitors simply were sunk on these routes, or at least not allowed
into the port.
As for the goods, you could have a rather good idea what would sell
where, how many other ships from which nations could also deliver tho-
se goods, and how much profit was to be expected.

 

[far-trader]

The crew size issue is an RPG requirement. It's just too hard to RPG a crew of dozens let alone more, even if most of them are disposable npcs. And of course the whole thing about AoS is the Sails requiring a lot of sailors.

And I think AoS competition matches well with the OTU. The big few competitors are the MegaCorps, and they do monopolize the best markets and engage in trade wars.

 

[captainjack23]

Possibly, you could discuss what you see as the points of divergence that are overlooked ?

I mentioned a few - the general lack of massive population movement, planets as ports rather than as great unexplored territories (like the New World was in the AoS), ship ownership, lack of large powerful navies (again I don't think the Imperial Navy is a good equivalent of the national navies of the AoS). Then there's also the fact that pirates seemed to survive quite well in the AoS but apparently (depending on who you ask) can't in the OTU.

I'm not sure I understand your point, or perhaps you misunderstand mine. almost all of those are characteristic of the pre 1840 AoS (no population movement, ship ownership, pirates pro or con) or incorrect - size of navies, exploration status of the world, etc.

I'm not sure the claim is that the OTU resmbles the late age of sail at all - if so, this is the first time I've heard it . I think you're confusing two distinct periods that have similar descriptions in popular culture/usage.

In many ways the "golden age of sail" referenced in Wikepedia is about the birth of steam and iron ships, and the changes it caused in sail to compete. Not an era of constant war, stasis and adventure.
There are vast differences despite the similar popular names. Again, its specialized knowlege - I don;t want to seem like I'm berating the subject, but it is about real differences in history and technology.

 

[EDG]

You've lost me completely, Jack. The points of divergence that I raised are points mentioned in the wikipedia article as being representative of the Age of Sail, and I don't see those points as being true for the OTU. (and to be clear, I wasn't talking about a "Golden Age of Sail" at all, just about the general definition of "Age of Sail").

If you're using some other reference to define the AoS then you'll need to clue me in on it. Though I can't see the OTU being similar to the late AoS though, because the equivalent of "steam ships" isn't on the horizon at all (I guess the closest OTU equivalent would be some form of instant FTL - there's no other way to get to another system faster than a week).

 

[captainjack23]

While there doubtless are similarities between the (late, I think) Age of
Sail and a Traveller setting, there are also major differences.

Just think of the people involved, the crews. Starship crews are much
smaller than sailing ship crews, the crew members need a theoretical
education (often at a university, I think - for example all engineers),
and their salaries are a much bigger part of the ship's expenses.

Then, you had fewer competitors and a simpler market in the Age of
Sail.
In fact, the best markets were monopolies, with only one single "line"
allowed to trade on the route, and warships enforcing the monopoly.
Competitors simply were sunk on these routes, or at least not allowed
into the port.
As for the goods, you could have a rather good idea what would sell
where, how many other ships from which nations could also deliver tho-
se goods, and how much profit was to be expected.

Well, again, I think the comparison to the late age of sail(&steam) is not what was intended....and if it was, yes it is not a good match; but I honestly think that this is not what is intended by the comparison.

Really, there's a lot more contrast to the history of the two periods than is apparent from a casual read in Wikepedia. The "golden age of sail" is about the last 50 years post about 1850 -the previous era -the other age of sail, covers at least 300 years before that. That period saw less tech change, but tons of knowlege acquired about sailing and the world -the late period was all about massive rapid tech change, and rather static sailing knowledge, if not a decline as it became obsolescent.

In fact, the late age of sail had smaller and smaller crews than the napoleonic period(one of the largest mechant, a seven master, had a crew of less than twenty), and naval ratings were becoming less skillful and more trained by rote than in the napoleonic era - automation was occurring, and people needed to be cogs. Education for the crew, was granted never an issue until recently, but the overall skill level dropped considerably.
The lines of merchant firms always existed, but really squeezed out the small trader by the late 1890's....absolutely not so pre 1840.

If there is a comparison, I'm sure the intent was to the pre 1840 age of sail.

 

[rust]

If I had to think of a specific period and region of the Age of Sail that in
my opinion had much in common with the OTU, I would probably choose
the time between about 1600 and about 1750 in the Carribean (is this the
right spelling ?).

There and then you had ships from many European nations competing
for the trade with many and very diverse colonies, major powers (for
example Spain) as well involved as minor ones (for example Denmark),
a comparatively "lawless" high sea (no peace beyond the line), pirates
and raiders, and lots of adventure opportunities.

 

[captainjack23]

You've lost me completely, Jack. The points of divergence that I raised are points mentioned in the wikipedia article as being representative of the Age of Sail, and I don't see those points as being true for the OTU. (and to be clear, I wasn't talking about a "Golden Age of Sail" at all, just about the general definition of "Age of Sail").

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".


There is about as much value in using Age of Sail as a generic term as there is in using stars to describe all objects off of the earth - or armor to describe anything that is worn in battle; it's technically correct, certainly in common parlance -but is so lacking in detail as to be useless in a detailed discussion.

If you're using some other reference to define the AoS then you'll need to clue me in on it. Though I can't see the OTU being similar to the late AoS though, because the equivalent of "steam ships" isn't on the horizon at all (I guess the closest OTU equivalent would be some form of instant FTL - there's no other way to get to another system faster than a week).

The reference I'm using is the one I stated earlier I'll repeat it here for reference, but I think you're just starting to skim my posts - 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. More simply, the revolutionary (french) and Napoleonic wars period.

The post 1840 golden age is not an age of sail, really. Its the period at which sail developed its ultimate expression and efficiencies, in an attempt to compete, unsuccessfully with steam.

I have to go away to a birthday party - may I suggest a bit of web cruising on Nautical history sites apart from Wikepedia ? Heck, the Patrick O'brian fan site is a cood place to start.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Well the OTU can resemble elements of the AoS with conforming to everything.

Lack of a massive slave and opium trade for a start!

Many of those elements of the AoS are cool. Clippers are cool.

I see their defining characteristic as their speed rather than their cargo capacity. In OTU terms that is jump range. I have them as a class of vessels in the 1000-2000 dTon range with J3 (a 1000dTon vessel can carry 400dTons of cargo using MGT). Originally built as exploratory traders to open new routes in the early days of the 3I, the designs have endured, finding roles as liners, auxiliary warships, scout vessels, leisure cruisers, and even as corsairs. They still work in the classic role: the transport of rare luxuries from distant sources to the central markets. Stuff like wines and liquor from Terra to the Core, and stuff that spoils and can't be preserved, or goods only available at a particular time. Norfolk Tears from the Nights Dawn is a good example. The ships are owned by small niche companies (which are often owned in turn by megacorps), world govts, families, and the odd very successful owner/captain.

In the AoS the Trade Winds were key. This could be said to be a bit similar to the mains, which forces most of the freight down particular channels. The vast majority of stuff that doesn't spoil will be transported by J1 or J2 ships, as it becomes increasingly uneconomic to ship bulk freight at higher jump marques. This makes the J3 clipper even faster, as it can take short cuts, whereas shorter range ships have to go the long way round (though I suppose this makes them more similar to the early steam traders).

Here's another thing. You could think of the star charts, like Supplement 3, as jump navigation gazetteers in (paper) book form. 3D space is flattened down and abstracted into jump range so long distance routes can be plotted and planned. There's a little info about the local conditions at each port, so that good prospects for repair and maintenance can be taken into account. The book is in paper form because it is a durable low tech and portable form, probably included in survival kits (maybe by TAS, sort of the OTU equivalent of the Gideon Bible?) so if a Traveller gets stranded they can chart a way home. So the hinterlands are hardly mentioned. Travel guides and trade knowledge fills in the rest.

If you look at the Spinward Marches, most of the population lives on a handful of key worlds. Most of the planets have fairly low populations. Many could be new colonies, even. I know the borders of the 1100 Imperium were more or less in place by the Civil War, but it does not mean every world was settled at the same time. And just because lots of population movements haven't been specifically mentioned, it doesn't mean they are not happening. Some of those places are overpopulated, and comparatively rich - it would make sense some people were leaving for pastures new.

As for piracy, I can see it happening from time to time even within Imperial space. The Sword Worlders can sponsor privateers, and clans from the Extents can forage deep. Star Systems are stupendously huge, and corsair ships small, and even high pop, high tech, systems with naval bases can't have their eyes everywhere. Ships can get fuel from Kuiper objects or distant snowballs, if they need to, and so pirates can sneak through patrolled space for fertile hunting grounds. If you have fuel scoops and purifiers, and a decent cargo bay for spare parts and supplies, ships can be quite self sufficient if they want to be. Even the whole Deneb Domian fleet couldn't patrol a single star system thoroughly enough to guarantee no corsair vessel could slip through.

So theres some big chunky similarities between the AoS and the OTU, but enough scope to cherry pick whatever you think is cool, or not, and still more or less fit the canonical setting.