Sources of Social Standing and Structure of the Navy

[rust]

Moved here from the hijacked ( ) thread about the
Zhodani supplement.

The chapter on "Social Standing" of the Dilettante supple-
ment begins with this introduction:

Social Standing is an often overlooked characteristic in Traveller.
It has become synonymous with noble rank and although
nobility is a major part of political and administrative authority of
many star systems, it does not necessarily correspond that the
highest Social Standing values should be limited to them. There
are many different aspects of society where being an important
bureaucrat will have no bearing, whereas an infamous criminal
reputation might well tip the balance in your favour.
This chapter investigates different facets of culture where
a character can hold a significant social status, potentially
gaining more respect than the traditional noble.

It then describes the different potential sources of a high
social standing: Business, Crime, Entertainment, Military,
Nobility, Science and Sports.

The actual social standing of a character depends on his
location and his social environment (if he moves away
from home and into other social circles, it decreases).
Characters also can have different social standing in dif-
ferent social environments.

One interesting example is this here:

‘Raffles’, the gentleman jewel thief, has pulled off many daring
escapades across several star systems. The law authorities are
completely stumped as to his real identity. Within the criminal
fraternity Raffles has a Social Standing of 14 due to his high
profile in the media but in real life Raffles is actually known as
Sir Perseus Danz a minor court dandy with a Social Standing of
only 11, commensurate of his rank as a knight.

{That's it for today, it is two hours past midnight over here ...}

 

[renski]

Very interesting. Thanks for moving to a new thread, as Im not planning on buying the Zhodani supplement I wasnt reading it.

 

[rust]

I think this approach to Soc is more useful than the normal
nobility stuff.

For my current Altiplano setting I deleted Nobility as a source
of Social Standing (no nobility in this setting) and added Ad-
ministration (bureaucracy, politics) and Religion - the equiva-
lent of the Pope is Soc 18 for most members of his religious
community.

There are also differences between the Social Standing with-
in the Altiplano colony and the Social Standing offworld, cha-
racters very influential on Altiplano may well be unknown on
a neighbouring planet, and a famous offworlder may be trea-
ted as "just another foreigner" on Altiplano.

Finally I gave Social Standing another function, it can change
with the characters' successes or failures ("The guy who dis-
covered the beryllium ore vein" increases his Soc, "The guy
who crashed our only shuttle" loses much Soc), and a certain
level of Soc is required to be elected into or promoted to a po-
sition of influence (no Colony Council Member with less than
Soc 9).

 

[AndrewW]

Finally I gave Social Standing another function, it can change
with the characters' successes or failures ("The guy who dis-
covered the beryllium ore vein" increases his Soc, "The guy
who crashed our only shuttle" loses much Soc), and a certain
level of Soc is required to be elected into or promoted to a po-
sition of influence (no Colony Council Member with less than
Soc 9).

What if someone gets elected and then crashes the colony's only shuttle?

 

[Tobias]

Continuing the discussion from the Zhodani topic. Warning: Will confuse you unless you read that topic. May still confuse you if you did!

It's easier to say that in theory you have one high baron or high marquis for each of the Imperium's 11,000 worlds.

I don't think that barons are necessarily associated with a whole world. In fact, I'm assuming they are usually not. IMTU, there can very well be several Barons for one world, and on high population worlds, there normally are. Even on a mid-population world, you'd have more than one.
The essay on nobility states that an enfeoffed Baron's title is appended by the name of his fief. I do not assume that the entirety of Yori, for example, is Norris' personal fief. It seems more likely that he has received the "premiere" fief on Yori and the title is largely honorary. This practice may very well be standard for family members of high nobles.
(I do also assume a rather loose connection of nobles, especially of the lower ranks, with the territory they are "associated" with.)

Sure, but you can have more than one Fleet Admiral per fleet, just as you have more than one four-star admiral per navy on Earth today

Not really, actually. It's not about the rank, it's about the position. Evidently, the designated position for the rank of Fleet Admiral is that of commanding a fleet, and you cannot fill that position more than once per fleet.
Of course, you will have more holders of this rank than this implies, in the administrative branches of the Navy, but for the fleet, that's about it.

"Then the average personnel of a regular fleet (excluding the reserve fleet) would be 281,810 (of which 93,940 would be civilian employees).

Civilians in the fleet? What business would they have there? Also, the number looks far too high to me. With 300,000 people you could crew 100 dreadnoughts and thousands of destroyers.
In any case: Using current real world navies, which tend to be extremely top-heavy, as a model is not a sensible approach IMO.

Right now, until I find the original source of those number and can confirm them or revise them, I'll stick to a number of admirals (rear admirals, vice admirals, admirals, and fleet admirals) of roughly 100 per Imperial fleet, or 30-32,000 for the entire Imperial Navy. (Sector and grand admirals won't add more than about a hundred more).

These numbers are absurdly high in my eyes. What would they do? You'd have 100 fleet admirals, which is the lowest admiral rank, per fleet? With one of them being the commander and the rest commanding... what? Squadrons? Then what do the Commodores do? Nevermind that I don't see 100 squadrons in a numbered fleet. More like 5 to 10.

Thouands of which guys? You have a handful of Imperial barons per major world, you have a handful of continental level rulers per world. Why shouldn't they be social equals?

A continental level ruler is not an especially important person in the context of the whole Imperium. Heck, PC-led mercenary groups topple these guys for a living.

You can have it one way or you can have it the other way, but you can't have it both ways.

:| Well, you clearly used an economic definition in your example. But actually, the written material pretty much insists on having in not two, but at least three ways. Soc indicates a mixture of birth status, economic status, and political power, and it is not quite clear when it indicates what.
In the original rules, Soc was birth class. That made sense, but then again, you could improve it, which does not really work under this definition.

 

[Captain Jonah]

I'm sure this was covered many moons ago and before that as well.

Its one of those themes that you can beat to death but it just keeps climbing out of its grave :lol:

Anyway SOC is the one stat that doesn't fit with the other 5. You can quantify how strong a person is or how well educated, tests can determine the IQ or hand eye coordination.

Social on the other hand, charm, charisma, fear factor. How do you quantify them.

As Rust says when he has administrators being high SOC above. On a frontier colony the sector administrator is the bloke who can get you those missing parts to fix the crab weed harvester, that duke on his yacht is just some annoying rich bloke who keeps getting in the way.

An Imperial Noble has status and influence based on his actual and perceived power. He may be a complete nobody to you but he has behind him the entire Imperial ruling structure that says you respect the title or someone scary comes to visit. The duke may be ruler of a flea bitten dust ball but if you get the reputation for treating Imperial Dukes like dross then that other Duke, the one with the tech 15 home world and the small Hurscarl fleet is going to have words. Dust ball Duke or no, you respect the title or you are made to respect the title.

Not by open force though that may happen, but when senior Imperial nobles put in a bad word about you and your business you go under.

As head of a Mega Corp, or Sub Sector Duke or Sector administrator you retain vast power and influence based on who you are and what you are perceived as being able to do. You may well have been on the highlights of every gossip show in the sector with your undergarments literally or figuratively round your ankles and so don’t get let into the best parties for a few months but that doesn’t change the fact that you have great influence because of what you can do, or what people think you can do.

Boss of the planets mob. High SOC within your area but you probably don’t get invited to the snotty parties. Dealing with people within a social strata where people are fully aware of your title and reputation is where your SOC gives the bonus.

Outside of your strata you get an effect based on what people think about your rank collectively and if that rank isn’t known then it gets no effect.

To an Aslan the Imperial Ambassador has status because he is both representative of a great power and granted recognised status as Ambasador. That annoying little human with him who keeps interrupting may have SOC 15 in human space but here he’s just someone you would like to kill but shouldn’t because it would be rude to the Ambasador.

To the Humans the mighty Alsan lord:

Benthalenioraldactinsal, champion of Saldertor, victor of Pashworl, Farther of twenty sons, master of the lands of asdrine, holder of the order of the blood claw, thrice Hero of the clans, defender of Uldrik, chosen claw of the high lord, holder of the silver blade of courage. :shock:

Would be “Erm right so Ben then”. 15 SOC of the most feared and renowned Aslan warrior and clan elder reduced to “Ben”. :lol:

 

[rust]

What if someone gets elected and then crashes the colony's only shuttle?

His Soc drops below 7 and he is "encouraged" to resign and
to hide in a remote cave for the next couple of years.

 

[Tobias]

It then describes the different potential sources of a high
social standing: Business, Crime, Entertainment, Military,
Nobility, Science and Sports.

The actual social standing of a character depends on his
location and his social environment (if he moves away
from home and into other social circles, it decreases).
Characters also can have different social standing in dif-
ferent social environments.

One interesting example is this here:

‘Raffles’, the gentleman jewel thief, has pulled off many daring
escapades across several star systems. The law authorities are
completely stumped as to his real identity. Within the criminal
fraternity Raffles has a Social Standing of 14 due to his high
profile in the media but in real life Raffles is actually known as
Sir Perseus Danz a minor court dandy with a Social Standing of
only 11, commensurate of his rank as a knight.

{That's it for today, it is two hours past midnight over here ...}

This approach to Social Standing does make sense. Unfortunately, it does not mesh all that well with the Traveller rules. Also, it is sort of a bookkeeping nightmare (I have tried this approach in other games.)

The different approach would be to say:
- It does not mean current economic status. (If it did, you could simply increase your Soc by striking it rich.)
- It does not mean political power. This is determined by ranks in appropriate careers.
- It does not mean reputation in a professional context.
It is how your class status is perceived in polite society. If you have Soc 2, people (if they know about it) will keep in mind that you are the son or daughter of homeless people (or something like that).

 

[rust]

I have never clearly defined Soc for my settings, except
that it is an ability to get things done through the use of
social skills (the game mechanics part) and is based upon
a character's position within a social network, with this po-
sition in turn based on all the many elements of a charac-
ter's biography which can make him influential in that spe-
cific social network - or not.

I agree that it could make Soc a bookkeeping nightmare in
some types of campaigns where the characters constantly
move between lots of different social environments. In the
case of my usual colony settings, where the characters mo-
re or less stay within the same social network for most of
the campaign, the bookkeeping is not really a problem.

Edit.:
Browsing through a dictionary, it seems that "Clout" could
perhaps describe the meaning of Soc as I use it.

 

[BP]

What if someone gets elected and then crashes the colony's only shuttle?

His Soc drops below 7 and he is "encouraged" to resign and
to hide in a remote cave for the next couple of years.

You left out a few details...

• 
  First, he vehemently denies the whole incident ever happened and tries to get his people to put a lid on it... then he (or one of his peeps) figures out how to blame it on someone else and put a spin on it so he appears the victim or, better yet, the hero... till the comm recordings come out in the press, of course... then, he 'sincerely' apologizes and resigns so things can settle down 'in the interest of what's best for people' and hides out till his book can be written and published...

Soc works and is used as 'people skills' or ability to deal with people (er, sophont skills). The setting specific attachment of noble title doesn't fit with any of the other stats as inherent character abilities. Title may facilitate things (or not), but it is not an ability in and of itself. (Education would better be called Knowledge or some such more general term, but the concept is ability).

 

[Hans Rancke]

It's easier to say that in theory you have one high baron or high marquis for each of the Imperium's 11,000 worlds.

I don't think that barons are necessarily associated with a whole world.

Barons, no. High barons, yes (Unless it's an important enough world, in which case its high noble is a marquis). Though as some canonical examples show, it's actually a high baronial title per world, sometimes held by a noble with a higher title.

In fact, I'm assuming they are usually not. IMTU, there can very well be several Barons for one world, and on high population worlds, there normally are. Even on a mid-population world, you'd have more than one.

According to GT:Nobles there can be up to one baron per 250 million people (I use the 'up to' to justify that places like Rethe doesn't have 104 barons but "only" a couple of dozen). But they wouldn't be high barons. A high-population world would have a high marquis, the title most likely held by the cluster's count or the duchy's duke.

The essay on nobility states that an enfeoffed Baron's title is appended by the name of his fief.

The statement is riddled with qualifications. "An individual accorded a barony for service may receive a fief of land [...] When a barony includes a fief, then the title is generally followed by the fief's name..." [LDNZ:36] (Emphasis mine).

I do not assume that the entirety of Yori, for example, is Norris' personal fief. It seems more likely that he has received the "premiere" fief on Yori and the title is largely honorary. This practice may very well be standard for family members of high nobles.

I'm quite sure Yori isn't Norris' personal fief any more than 'Marquis of Regina' indicates that Regina is.

Sure, but you can have more than one Fleet Admiral per fleet, just as you have more than one four-star admiral per navy on Earth today

Not really, actually. It's not about the rank, it's about the position.

Yes, really, actually. 'Fleet Admiral' is both position and a rank. Presumably the rank was named after the position.

Evidently, the designated position for the rank of Fleet Admiral is that of commanding a fleet, and you cannot fill that position more than once per fleet.

AFAIK there is absolutely no evidence that the only designated position for the rank of Fleet Admiral is that of commanding a fleet. (I'm not even sure that there is evidence for any admiral commanding a fleet that has the rank of Fleet Admiral, but I could be wrong and in any case I'm quite willing to assume that it is the case. :wink

Of course, you will have more holders of this rank than this implies, in the administrative branches of the Navy, but for the fleet, that's about it.

You need an admiral to cammand the numbered fleet. [~5-star]
You need lesser admirals to command subordinate fleets [several squadrons grouped together] stationed in individual systems. [~4-star]
You need lesser admirals to command BatRons. [~3-star]
You need lesser admirals to command heavy CruRons and half-squadron BatRons. [~2-stars]
You need lesser flag officers to command light CruRons and half-squadrons and BatDivs. [~1-star]

For all these command levels, the Imperial Navy canonically have two substantive ranks: Commodore and Fleet Admiral. The only way to solve this need is to stretch one or both ranks over more than one command level.

There are several canonical mentions of rear andmirals and vice admirals, ranks that apparently doesn't exist. MT attempted to explain that by saying that rear admiral is another term for fleet admiral and vice admiral is another term for sector admiral, but the explanation is broken as all known examples of vice admirals seems subordinate to the command of a numbered fleet (e.g. a task force of 2-3 squadrons, a major naval base).

Only possible explanation I've seen so far is that 'Fleet Admiral' is divided into three of four levels, just as historically in some times and places the same rank has been used to cover more than one command level.

(Personally I think 'Admiral', 'Vice Admiral' and 'Rear Admiral' should be retconned into the ranks of the Imperial Navy, but sadly Marc Miller is adamantly against that idea. )

"Then the average personnel of a regular fleet (excluding the reserve fleet) would be 281,810 (of which 93,940 would be civilian employees).

Civilians in the fleet? What business would they have there? Also, the number looks far too high to me. With 300,000 people you could crew 100 dreadnoughts and thousands of destroyers.

Ah, I've run into this one before. I really should include it into my boilerplate exposition. Basically, by 'fleet' I mean "all the ships in the fleet and all the groundbased operations needed to keep the ships flying". The 300,000 came about from these assumptions:

* Assuming that an IN regular fleet is organized roughly analogous to the US Navy.
* Assuming the figures in Rebellion Sourcebook are reasonably accurate.
* Assuming battleships have an average crew size equal to the average of the three battleships featured in Fighting Ships (= 2,250).
* Assuming cruisers and carriers have an average crew size equal to the average of the nine cruisers and carriers featured in Fighting Ships (= 400).
* Assuming fleets have an average of 9 squadrons (RbS says 8-10).
* Assuming squadrons have an average of 7 combat vessels (Note: squadrons would usually have 8 or 6 (or 4) combat vessels, almost never an odd number).
* Assuming 2 CruRons for every BatRon.
* Assuming crew for smaller ships (escorts, destroyers, couriers, auxiliaries, etc.) equals 10% of crew for combat vessels.
* Assuming 3 groundbased employees for every shipboard employee.

(I did mention that I was quite aware that my assumptions were open to challenge, didn't I? If I didn't say it before, I'll repeat it now :wink.

In any case: Using current real world navies, which tend to be extremely top-heavy, as a model is not a sensible approach IMO.

I've heard the one about modern navies (actually, just the US Navy) being top-heavy before. I think that using the only source of information I have about something that actually exists is eminently sensible, but if you can substantiate your claim about the top-heaviness, I'm quite prepared to revise my figures. How over-officered is the US Navy? 5% 10% 15%?

Or one could assume that the Imperial Navy is similarily over-officered. Why not? It's evident that it's possible to run an organization with that proportion of chiefs to braves even if it may not be neccessary (A claim that I haven't seen substantiated yet).

Right now, until I find the original source of those number and can confirm them or revise them, I'll stick to a number of admirals (rear admirals, vice admirals, admirals, and fleet admirals) of roughly 100 per Imperial fleet, or 30-32,000 for the entire Imperial Navy. (Sector and grand admirals won't add more than about a hundred more).

These numbers are absurdly high in my eyes. What would they do? You'd have 100 fleet admirals, which is the lowest admiral rank, per fleet? With one of them being the commander and the rest commanding... what? Squadrons? Then what do the Commodores do? Nevermind that I don't see 100 squadrons in a numbered fleet. More like 5 to 10.

Three quarters of them would provide flag officers for the groundbased operations. Even dustbreathers -- yeah, even civilian dustbreathers -- need someone to tell them what to do. But it does seem a bit high. I'd be much more comfortable with the 66 admirals (of several levels) and 66 commodores I originally arrived at. Is it possible that the wikipedia figure of 325,000 doesn't include the civilian personnel, making my original figures roughly correct after all?

A Tigress has a crew of 4000. You could justify using a commodore to command it. Certainly a BatDiv would require one, and you'd probably have a vice admiral to command the squadron with a rear admiral as his deputy.

Other battleships would have smaller crews (though the text also mentions that there are bigger battleships than Tigresses in service), but the smallest we know of (the Plankwell) has a crew of 1163, a total of 9300 for an entire squadron, enough to justify 3 or 4 flag officers. The average I assume for battleships (see above) is 2250. Heavy cruisers run to 500 or 600 crew, again enough to justify a couple of flag officers for a squadron of them.

A continental level ruler is not an especially important person in the context of the whole Imperium.

Neither is an Imperial baron if there are 10,000 or more of them.

Heck, PC-led mercenary groups topple these guys for a living.

Not on worlds with a population level of 9, which is where you'll find the continental leaders that are the social equals of Imperial barons. You didn't seriously think I meant continental leaders on worlds with low and low-middle populations, did you? I thought it went without saying that I meant worlds that meant something to the Imperium.

Well, you clearly used an economic definition in your example. But actually, the written material pretty much insists on having in not two, but at least three ways. Soc indicates a mixture of birth status, economic status, and political power, and it is not quite clear when it indicates what.

You're right about the rules conflating several different factors into one game mechanic. But that's because the rules don't cover all the factors. The one factor they did cover (before Dilletante) was social class; the rest gets mixed in promiscuously and muddles things up.


Hans

 

[Tobias]

According to GT:Nobles there can be up to one baron per 250 million people (I use the 'up to' to justify that places like Rethe doesn't have 104 barons but "only" a couple of dozen). But they wouldn't be high barons. A high-population world would have a high marquis, the title most likely held by the cluster's count or the duchy's duke.

Ah, GURPS. I was wondering where the "high" business is from. I don't have that material.

The statement is riddled with qualifications. "An individual accorded a barony for service may receive a fief of land

That's why I wrote "enfeoffed".

I'm quite sure Yori isn't Norris' personal fief any more than 'Marquis of Regina' indicates that Regina is.

The title conventions for a Marquis is different from that for a Baron.

AFAIK there is absolutely no evidence that the only designated position for the rank of Fleet Admiral is that of commanding a fleet. (I'm not even sure that there is evidence for any admiral commanding a fleet that has the rank of Fleet Admiral, but I could be wrong and in any case I'm quite willing to assume that it is the case. :wink

It is stated in no uncertain terms that numbered fleets are commanded by Fleet Admirals.

You need an admiral to cammand the numbered fleet. [~5-star]
You need lesser admirals to command subordinate fleets [several squadrons grouped together] stationed in individual systems. [~4-star]
You need lesser admirals to command BatRons. [~3-star]
You need lesser admirals to command heavy CruRons and half-squadron BatRons. [~2-stars]
You need lesser flag officers to command light CruRons and half-squadrons and BatDivs. [~1-star]

This is a complication, and IMHO a needless one. The canonical structure below the sector level is:
Fleet -> Squadron -> Ship.
And that's it. Fleets are commanded by Fleet Admirals. Squadrons by Commodores. And ships (just referring to major fleet units) by Captains or occasionally Commanders. The Rebellion Sourcebook, which I have always used as my source, is crystal clear in this regard. If a "who's in command?" situation should arise, seniority should kick in.

Ah, I've run into this one before. I really should include it into my boilerplate exposition. Basically, by 'fleet' I mean "all the ships in the fleet and all the groundbased operations needed to keep the ships flying".

Okay. Seems a little tail-heavy though. I don't think the US Navy has a tail to teeth ratio of 3:1 (although 2:1 may approach it.)
As for the numbers: Again, the Rebellion sourcebook is relatively clear. A named sector fleet as about 1000 major combat ships, including battleships, cruisers and some escorts. The last one is a little ambiguous. I assume it to mean escorts of several thousand tons at least, with bay armament.
A numbered fleet has between 50 and 200 ships organized into three to ten (or two to ten, there are contradictory statements) squadrons. In this case, it is not quite clear if auxiliaries are excluded. The example of a numbered fleet consists of one BatRon, one CruRon and one EsRon.
There are some bits about the organization of squadrons in FSSI, but they make so little sense to me I've decided to ignore them. If you can make sense out of them, let me know.

Using these numbers, I had arrived at about 40,000 to 50,000 personnel for an average numbered fleet. Of course, I only include the actual fleet in these calculations, not base personnel. But this discrepancy between the numbers we arrived at is not the major point. It is more important that I am assuming a much leaner, less top-heavy and less tail-heavy organizational structure than you are.

I've heard the one about modern navies (actually, just the US Navy) being top-heavy before. I think that using the only source of information I have about something that actually exists is eminently sensible, but if you can substantiate your claim about the top-heaviness, I'm quite prepared to revise my figures. How over-officered is the US Navy? 5% 10% 15%?

I don't know if it's over-officered but it's often considered to be over-admiraled. People occasionally joke about the Navy having more admirals than ships, and while this is only almost true for the US Navy, it is quite literally true for others such as the Royal Navy.
It is not a new phenomenon: In Nelson's time, the Royal Navy basically every captain would eventually be promoted to admiral - in 1812 you had about 180 admirals. Compare to the situation until the mid-18th century, when the total number of admirals in the navy was limited to nine (each having his own separate rank in a system which need not be explained here.)

Or one could assume that the Imperial Navy is similarily over-officered.

One could, but one doesn't need to. Using the example above: In the mid-18th century, with about 200 rated ships, the British had nine admirals, while in the early 19th century, with about 300-400 rated ships they had 180 admirals. It's a matter of taste which model you like to follow.

A Tigress has a crew of 4000. You could justify using a commodore to command it.

I couldn't because a commodore, historically, does by definition command more than one vessel (or something different than one vessel) and a captain is the highest rank who will command a single vessel, no matter how large and powerful. Even a supercarrier is commanded by a captain.

Certainly a BatDiv would require one

What for? I'm not even sure that squadrons have separate divisions.

Other battleships would have smaller crews (though the text also mentions that there are bigger battleships than Tigresses in service), but the smallest we know of (the Plankwell) has a crew of 1163, a total of 9300 for an entire squadron, enough to justify 3 or 4 flag officers. The average I assume for battleships (see above) is 2250. Heavy cruisers run to 500 or 600 crew, again enough to justify a couple of flag officers for a squadron of them.

I think you are too fixated on the number of personnel. It's about commanding ships, not men.

Neither is an Imperial baron if there are 10,000 or more of them.

Exactly.

Not on worlds with a population level of 9, which is where you'll find the continental leaders that are the social equals of Imperial barons.

Why the hell not, if the tech level is low? Isn't one of the example mercenary tickets... (looks it up) oh yeah it is: Kicking the butts of several major powers on a a pop 9, TL6 world. (Aided by a minor power on said world which acts as the employer's puppet state.)

 

[rust]

I am not aware of the usage in other countries, but over
here a flag officer always commands a unit of ships, not
a single ship, and one of those ships is his flagship with
his flag. Even the biggest and most important single ship
our previous navy ever had, the battleship Bismarck, was
commanded by a mere Kapitän zur See (= Captain). Our
current navy has had only four Admirals in the 55 years
since it was established, and the number of other officers
of flag rank also was rather low. So, from where I am the
idea of two officers of flag rank serving on the same ship
is a rather alien concept.

 

[Hans Rancke]

You need an admiral to cammand the numbered fleet. [~5-star]
You need lesser admirals to command subordinate fleets [several squadrons grouped together] stationed in individual systems. [~4-star]
You need lesser admirals to command BatRons. [~3-star]
You need lesser admirals to command heavy CruRons and half-squadron BatRons. [~2-stars]
You need lesser flag officers to command light CruRons and half-squadrons and BatDivs. [~1-star]

This is a complication, and IMHO a needless one.

Not needless. Studies have shown that there's a limit to how many direct subordinates someone can use effectively. That's why modern ships have commanders, lt. commanders, lieutenants, sub-lieutenants, ensigns, and up to nine different enlisted ranks.

The canonical structure below the sector level is:
Fleet -> Squadron -> Ship.
And that's it. Fleets are commanded by Fleet Admirals. Squadrons by Commodores. And ships (just referring to major fleet units) by Captains or occasionally Commanders. The Rebellion Sourcebook, which I have always used as my source, is crystal clear in this regard. If a "who's in command?" situation should arise, seniority should kick in.

It may be crystal clear, but it's also simplified. The task force operating against the Vargr in the Kinorb Cluster in 1109 (Battle Squadron 203 and several cruiser squadrons) is commanded by an admiral (Vice Admiral Elphinstone).

And let's not forget that the the Commander-in-Chief, Naval Intelligence, Regina Subsector, is an admiral (Rear Admiral Lord Santanocheev). Naval Intelligence would be just one of a number of administrative departments of the fleet stationed in Regina. There'd be a medical department, a legal department, Supply, Maintenance, Personnel, etc. It takes a complicated organization to keep tens of millions of tons of starship flying. Above them would at the very least be a Chief of Staff and the Fleet Admiral (position).

Okay. Seems a little tail-heavy though. I don't think the US Navy has a tail to teeth ratio of 3:1 (although 2:1 may approach it.)

I got that from some Real Life example, but it's so long ago that I can't remember where. I didn't just pull it out of a hat.

As for the numbers: Again, the Rebellion sourcebook is relatively clear. A named sector fleet as about 1000 major combat ships, including battleships, cruisers and some escorts. The last one is a little ambiguous. I assume it to mean escorts of several thousand tons at least, with bay armament.

I interpret those escorts to be rare oversized ships big enough to carry a spinal but not having one and mostly ignore them.

A numbered fleet has between 50 and 200 ships organized into three to ten (or two to ten, there are contradictory statements) squadrons.

The very same source (RbS) is also very clear that a sector theoretically has a group of fleets numbering 1000 combat vessels. Assuming that the 'theortically' refer to those 1000 combat vessels being for a sector with 16 subsectors important enough to have a fleet each, the average number of major combat vessels for a fleet is 62½. These are average numbers, remember; the IN isn't going to station exactly enough ships in a sector to make the number come out an even 1000. 62½ ships is almost exactly an average of 9 squadrons with an average of 7 ships. There are fleets with only three squadrons, but there can't be many of them; for every such fleet you'll need six fleets with 10 squadrons to make the average come out right.

The 50 to 200 ships must include auxiliaries. Otherwise the two-squadron fleets would have a minimum of 25 combat vessels and fleets with 200 ships would have squadrons with at least 20 combat vessels.

In this case, it is not quite clear if auxiliaries are excluded. The example of a numbered fleet consists of one BatRon, one CruRon and one EsRon.

"Squadrons consist of two or more ships of the same type and class, plus any supporting ships which can provide support, escort, or reinforcement." [RbS:28] The three-squadron fleet would be a outlier whose task is deemed performable with one BatRon and two CruRons. (the 858th is called 'Escort Squadron' but that would be a title; as per p. 28, there's no such thing as an EscRon.)

There are some bits about the organization of squadrons in FSSI, but they make so little sense to me I've decided to ignore them. If you can make sense out of them, let me know.

I don't have FSSI, but I've heard bad things about it.

Of course, I only include the actual fleet in these calculations, not base personnel. But this discrepancy between the numbers we arrived at is not the major point. It is more important that I am assuming a much leaner, less top-heavy and less tail-heavy organizational structure than you are.

Why? The larger the organization, the larger the tail is likely to be. Assuming a tail no larger than that of the USN is actually pretty iffy.

I don't know if it's over-officered but it's often considered to be over-admiraled. People occasionally joke about the Navy having more admirals than ships, and while this is only almost true for the US Navy, it is quite literally true for others such as the Royal Navy.
It is not a new phenomenon: In Nelson's time, the Royal Navy basically every captain would eventually be promoted to admiral - in 1812 you had about 180 admirals.

But that was a result of the seniority system. Not all of those 180 admirals were employed. Those who weren't were said to be 'yellowed'. OTOH, admirals were employed for more than fleets and squadrons. There were port admirals in the biggest ports and admirals on foreign stations.

Compare to the situation until the mid-18th century, when the total number of admirals in the navy was limited to nine (each having his own separate rank in a system which need not be explained here.)

A comparison is meaningless unless we consider the size of the RN at the time and the tasks it was expected to perform.

A Tigress has a crew of 4000. You could justify using a commodore to command it.

I couldn't because a commodore, historically, does by definition command more than one vessel (or something different than one vessel) and a captain is the highest rank who will command a single vessel, no matter how large and powerful. Even a supercarrier is commanded by a captain.

You feel that the Imperial Navy would be legally bound by 3000 year old traditions? Traditions that are eroding, BTW. While the CO of a carrier is still only a captain, he is no longer the only captain aboard. But I didn't say there would be a commodore in charge; I just said it could be justified. Let's stick to a captain in charge, to avoid wasting time on that. But any carrier is the center of a carrier group that does have a rear admiral in charge. A Tigress is organized in a squadron with seven other Tigresses. To posit that such a squadron would be a commodore's command is IMO extremely unlikely. A squadron with lightly crewed ships like the 154th, sure, but not a squadron of Tigresses.

I think you are too fixated on the number of personnel. It's about commanding ships, not men.

It's about both. 1000 men need more command levels than 100. 10,000 men need more command levels than 1000. 300,000 men need more than two flag command levels.

Neither is an Imperial baron if there are 10,000 or more of them.

Exactly.

Exactly what? An Imperial baron would be a big deal on the planetary level if there are only a few of them per world. Just as a continental leader would be a big deal on the planetary level however small a deal he may be on the Imperial level. Striker even provides rules for it.

Not on worlds with a population level of 9, which is where you'll find the continental leaders that are the social equals of Imperial barons.

Why the hell not, if the tech level is low?

Because even worlds with lowish tech levels can afford to import higher military technology if they have billions of people to tax.

Isn't one of the example mercenary tickets... (looks it up) oh yeah it is: Kicking the butts of several major powers on a a pop 9, TL6 world. (Aided by a minor power on said world which acts as the employer's puppet state.)

There aren't very many of such worlds around. I was speaking in general terms. I guess those several major powers didn't think to import military tech, huh? This would be Aramanx, right? Balkanized world, country can afford to maintain 60 divisions and no one thought to beef up the firepower with a bit of imported technology? I guess they must have been at peace for a long time. Serves them right to get their butts kicked. Too bad for them that ticket was written before Striker came out. Well, I'll grant you that one; I hadn't thought about local forces helping. "Toppling these guys for a living" is still hyperbole, though. This is called "The Dream Ticket" for a reason; something like that doesn't come up often.


Hans

 

[Hans Rancke]

I am not aware of the usage in other countries, but over here a flag officer always commands a unit of ships, not a single ship, and one of those ships is his flagship with his flag. Even the biggest and most important single ship our previous navy ever had, the battleship Bismarck, was commanded by a mere Kapitän zur See (= Captain). Our current navy has had only four Admirals in the 55 years since it was established, and the number of other officersof flag rank also was rather low. So, from where I am the idea of two officers of flag rank serving on the same ship is a rather alien concept.

I didn't say that any ship in the world today was commanded by a commodore. I said that it could be justified to have one command a ship that size. Aircraft carriers already break the tradition of the commanding being the only one with the rank of captain aboard. It really isn't so inconcievable that another tradition might have been broken 3000 years from now.

But as I said in my reply to Tobias, let's agree on captains even for Tigresses.


Hans

 

[rust]

As for the "teeth : tail" problem, our navy until recently had
about 25,000 soldiers, with only 19,000 of them actually ser-
ving in the navy (the others in staff functions, medical servi-
ce, at embassies, etc.), and of these only 6,000 on seagoing
units. There were also about 2,000 civilians, who for example
manned the smaller unarmed craft, like tugs.

Edit.:
These numbers may be slightly distorted by the fact that our
navy has two aviation squadrons based on land, but I think
this is not entirely unusual - an Imperial Navy base would al-
so have fighters for protection.

 

[rust]

Aircraft carriers already break the tradition of the commanding being the only one with the rank of captain aboard.

This is not really a tradition if the second captain is responsible for
something else than the ship, for example aircraft or troops. Bigger
ships often had a unit of marines with a captain as their commander,
and our navy's next generation of frigates will carry a unit of 50 spe-
cial forces each, which may well also be commanded by a captain. It
is just flag officers who do not normally serve on the same ship.

 

[Hans Rancke]

Aircraft carriers already break the tradition of the commanding being the only one with the rank of captain aboard.

This is not really a tradition if the second captain is responsible for something else than the ship, for example aircraft or troops.

It is (or was) if the captain is another navy captain.

Bigger ships often had a unit of marines with a captain as their commander.

That would be a marine captain, the rank-equivalent of a navy lieutenant (O3). Not the same thing as a navy captain (O6). You never saw colonels serving aboard ships.


Hans

 

[Hans Rancke]

I just remembered something. It's not true that commodores never captained a ship directly. During the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy had two levels of commodore: Commodores with a captain under them and commodores without a captain under them (Pay ans share in prize money differed). A commodore without a captain under him would captain his flag ship in addition to running the squadron.

Looks like an aircraft carrier having both a rear admiral and a captain might be an example of over-officering...


Hans

 

[rust]

That would be a marine captain, the rank-equivalent of a navy lieutenant (O3). Not the same thing as a navy captain (O6). You never saw colonels serving aboard ships.

This may well be true for the US Marines, but they were and are
not the world's only naval infantry. We did and do have navy cap-
tains of the special forces serve at sea, and it is similar in a num-
ber of other navies.