 September 1, 2013 - 7:24pm | I've been wrestling with this for a while: there don't seem to be enough people in the UPF Spacefleet or in the Naval forces of the Frontier in General. I listed all the ships in SW2 per Knight Hawks (remastered) and the total number of personnel on mobile units, including fighters, is about 4,500. Even if you factor in Fortresses and Armed Stations and construction yards, support staff behind the scenes, the entire mobilized forces protecting the frontier come out to the equivalent today of the Canadian Armed Forces. That strikes me as a little thin for the Frontier. It's even worse if you tally up the militias: they come to a total of 500 people in mobile units. Just the Clarion Royal Marines have under 100 people on mobile units...and that doesn't feel right. Has anyone else done the numbers here? I can se landfleet numbering in the millions and therefore needing a lot of troop transport personnel, but Spacefleet just feels to small! How big is Spacefleet? How big should it be? Sam Curry |
 September 1, 2013 - 9:44pm | I've been thinking a lot about this as well and there has been a lot of discussion about it in various threads around the site. I agree there should be more, maybe. At some level I think my gut reaction is that there should be many more ships than what is in the 'canon'. Especially things like support ships, shuttles, etc. These ship definitely have to exist at some level. And there should probably be more warships as well. Especially if you want spacecraft to be common and abundant in your campaign. You're going to need a larger Spacefleet to patrol all that. On the other hand, if spacecraft are rare, than maybe Spacefleet doesn't really need to be much bigger. If there are only a few thousand ships in the Frontier (more on why this might be true below), then the listed size of Spacefleet and the militias may be just right. And if the UPF is relatively weak (like the early confederation of states in America before the US Constitution was ratified) they're not going to have a lot of funding and therefore Spacefleet will be small by necessity. It could very well be that Spacefleet isn't staffed for the job it has and it takes a major active threat, like a new Sathar invasion to get them the manpower and ships they really need. Overall, it is a very interesting question that touches on a lot of different interrelated topics from UPF govenment, to population densities, to intestellar trade and transport (i.e. what and how much), to local and interstellar economics and politics, to construction capabilities and resources, etc. I've been working on a project that will appear as an article in a future issue of the Frontier Explorer that looks at the number of ships the Starship Construction Centers (SCCs) can support. The short answer is not very many. Following the rules for ship construction and maintenance as presented in the Campaign book, plus the sizes and capacities of the SCCs listed, if the average hull size of ships in the Frontier is around HS 8, then the SCCs are only capable of maintaining a Frontier wide total of less than 1700 ships (assuming they all get maintenance every year). If you assume the average hull size is around 5, then that number increases to about 3700. If you relax the maintenance work from yearly to bi-yearly, the numbers jump to 2400 and 5000 respectively. Of course if the average hull size is larger (i.e. more big ships), it drops. At an average hull size of 10, you are down to total of 1200 (1 year maintenance) and 1700 (2 year maintenance). Going with the HS 8 average number, 1700 ships corresponds to and average of only just over 100 total ships (Spacefleet, militia, corporate, and civilian) per star system. At 3700, that's still only an average of about 250 ships. At those numbers, the stated size of Spacefleet actaully may not be that unreasonable. It's a little small, but maybe not by too much. If you want your Frontier to have more ships than that, you have to significantly increase the production capacity of the SCCs and increase their number. Anyway, as you can tell, this is a topic I'm interested in. Can't wait to hear what others say. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 September 2, 2013 - 3:29am | I think we might all agree that the TSR staff putting KHs together probably didn't do any number crunching and instead just listed numbers that seemed managable for game purposes. That leaves us with two choices and potentially variations on those choices: 1. increase the numbers to suit ourselves 2. work within the framework of revealed cannon material to explain the things that dont seem right. this some times works but just because we have an explanation that doesn't mean it will hold water. However I do like working within the cannon material to resolve issues with setting since the printed setting works as a base line we all can speak as a common tongue. Thanks Tom for doing the number crunching on the SCCs BTW. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 September 2, 2013 - 4:44am | Yeah, everything about the fleets in KH are way too small ( mostly for the sake of the skirmish-level wargame): the size of the ships, the number of ships in a given fleet, the crew size (did those guys have any concept of a "watch system"?), the number of Fighters, and no auxiliary ships beyond Mine Layers and Military Transports. I have been thinking about scrapping Knight Hawks system all together. To build something better from the ground up. Do we have a project group for an alternative or revised Knight Hawks system? (oh wait, never mind.) |
 September 2, 2013 - 8:58am | The best I have been able to do with rationalizing the number of ships is what TerlObar mentioned: the frontier was designed to be a setting where ships were scarce. The illustration of the weakness of the federal government in the early history of the US is a good one. |
September 2, 2013 - 9:21am | There is that statement in KHs that says there are numerous patrol groups besides the ships listed in the book with a frigate and two assault scouts being the most common. It recognizes that the lists in the campaign game is low but doesnt give us had numbers. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 September 2, 2013 - 1:12pm | The best I have been able to do with rationalizing the number of ships is what TerlObar mentioned: the frontier was designed to be a setting where ships were scarce. The illustration of the weakness of the federal government in the early history of the US is a good one.
The UPF being a confederacy does mean they have a drastic limit on their budget since they only get what they can get out of the member planets (have we ever done a discussion on how the UPF is funded?) they are limited in what they can buy and maintain. The 1st Sathar War was fought with the warships the planets of the Frontier had lying around and had to be organized for that fight into a very limited engagement (there were what 4 actual battles). Spacefleet which supposedly runs with crews who are the scum of the Frontier is of course a group with a very limited mission. Since the planetary militias police planetary space, Spacefleet is left with alot of patroling away from home and blockading quarantined worlds. Overall I have always mentioned scraping KHs and using something even slightly more realistic. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
September 2, 2013 - 2:35pm | Overall I have always mentioned scraping KHs and using something even slightly more realistic. I think there is a difference we should make between fixing the mechanics of the rules and fixing or scrapping the setting, because I doubt that anyone here really wants to scrap the setting. That said do you have a system you'd like to suggest? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 2, 2013 - 3:29pm | Jed you know I am not a fan of no artificial gravity (which never explained how anyone survived the G-forces required to make the speed necessary to make interstellar speeds but that is another area) As to systems I have found the Traveller system also cumbersome. The string of numbers used to explain a starship is surprising similar to a VIN number and about as easy to comprehend. Now the Battlespace (Battletech Universe) is surprisingly similar to SF/KH. There is no artificial gravity, they have two kinds of ships; ones which land on planets and ones which jump between stars, a hex based movement system, and a rather large variety of weapons. Bonus the dropships (which land on planets and have no artificial gravity) are not limited to needle shapes with small decks. Of course I am open to other systems. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
September 2, 2013 - 5:42pm | I'm not 100% against artificial grav and SF has some tech that points at in the direction of AG- the inertia screans- I believe that some of basic physics behind what makes the inertia defense screen possible in the Frontier would be applied in other ways, principly in reducing g forces- Instead of slowing down a bullet from hitting the wearer the screening effect is reversed to treat the person at their combat duty station on a ship as a the bullet and slow them down from hitting the ship. You could extrapolate that it gets applied in various ways in vehicles for safety and crash survival- inertia bumpers to reduce impact As to systems to convert to- I've not been that interested in doing that perfering to adapt KHs but Stars Without Number is really sucking me in and its essentially D20 which actually pisses me off in light of my past love hate relationship with D20 systems. What I dont like is the setting so much but part of me might like to play a sand box game as SwoN's author espouses. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 2, 2013 - 8:49pm | One of the first things that has to change, number wise, are the crew numbers. Take the Assault Scout for example. They have an established crew of 5: The Pilot; the Astrogator; the Engineer; a Gunner for the lasers; and a Gunner for the rockets (although, that would be a system the Pilot can handle, like with a Fighter). They only have one person to deal with each assignment, and they lack the basic crew to do the basic maintenance or effect damage-control during combat. On a real ship, the needed crew are tripled into work crew - each team works a 4-hour shift. This added crew do not take-up a lot of added space, as everyone shares beds. It SF, the AD rules note a 10 hour work shift, within a 20 hour day. So ships would have 2 work shifts. So an Assault Scout would need the following to cover two shifts:
|
September 2, 2013 - 9:25pm | I'm with Jedion on the SWON system. I've been converting my game over to that system for ships, while keeping the regular AD system for everything else. |
September 3, 2013 - 12:35am | The rules are good if you like OSR-based systems. Otherwise, it would not take much of an effort to convert the game with other game systems, if one don't care stuff like Class-Level mechanics. The bast part about SWON is the whole ship design system: take a basic hull type with all the core equipment and features included; instal additional major systems and features; do a bit of simple number-crunching; add picture and fluff; get going! |
September 3, 2013 - 7:44am | I like the hull types as well. Funny thing: I actually got into SWON by trying to find an easier way to price out ships. Once I checked it all out, I realized how simple it was and started converting the ship system over. Another thing I like is the way armor and armor piercing weapons work. The way the flat damage resistance works makes sense to me, because why should a frigate or cruiser take damage the same as a freighter, if the armor is supposedly so powerful. |
 September 4, 2013 - 5:07am | Obviously the fleet sizes (and militias as well) listed in the Campaign Book were drummed up for tabletop boardgame balance. That said, the Sathar War Machine should be capable of producing far more than what was dispatched for the 2nd War. Realistically, any society that already succumbed to the threat (Sathar War I) would have been better prepared than canon's defense of "10 out of 27 worlds", more so given the time elapsed between the two wars. |
September 4, 2013 - 6:38am | I think planetary defenses would have been a big funding issue especially for Pale- it has a large population and robust economy. any other major planet that has suffered a sathar incursion, whether the sathar landed troops or not, would also have invested heavily in planet based defenses I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 4, 2013 - 4:24pm | I would say any world larger than an outpost would have some form of militia to protect themselves. Even if they have to hire them from elsewhere. |
September 4, 2013 - 5:02pm | Mercenary Militia? Mega corp or smaller outfit? the only issue with that is that mercenaries dont like to fight to the death but home grown militia will to defend their home with their lives. That is providing good morale, training and motivation- well even poorly trained troops have fought to the death with the right motivation. This sounds like an interesting magazine write up if someone was interested in doing it- a MerCo mercenary militia division. Organization, equipment, training, codes of conduct; intriguing actually. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 4, 2013 - 6:01pm | Morale and training are two different but related things. Look at the riots in Egypt. Those guys are a barely organized mob but are dying because they are motivated for their cause (just an example no political comments please). On the other hand many highly trained units have been broken, wars would not end if they did not. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
September 4, 2013 - 6:20pm | @Rattraveller: exactly what I was thinking good example too I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 5, 2013 - 2:58pm | Mercenaries that fail to protect their clients tend to not get paid... |
September 5, 2013 - 5:29pm | Can't spend your money if you die as well- Mercenaries dont tend to "Alamo". I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 6, 2013 - 5:11am | Sure, but it's a last ditch effort. Any government would want to protect its sovereignty. If they don't have the means to do so, in a pinch they would certainly entertain the notion of hiring someone who could. My current line of work is the most basic sense of "mercenary" employment. Sure, it's not the same thing, rather the basic form of it. I work for a security service that hires out to anyone that needs it. I'm currently posted at a high rise condo complex. The bottom line is anyone that fails at their job, no matter how trivial that failure may be, gets removed from the site. If you get removed from enough sites, you are no longer employed. Security guards get injured on duty, once in a while they even die on duty. It's an accepted facet of the job due to the nature of confrontations, and if the risk outweighs the individual then the individual would do well to consider another line of work. The same would apply to a true mercenary force...if the client feels they're not doing their job then they get dismissed. They know there's a chance they could end up not finishing the job, it's a risk they take --- hence the fees they would charge. Look up private security contractors like Blackwater and you'll see what sorts of work is involved with legally sanctioned "mercenary" outfits...all of those guys know the risks and all of them know if they fail at the job they won't return home. So they train lke crazy to prevent that from happening...but there's still no guarantee. The bottom line is they'll do the job, or die trying. And anyone that is obviously not willing to accept that simple fact won't be a part of the team. |
 September 6, 2013 - 7:46am | RE: the Assault Scout and small crew numbers-- I was wondering about that when I was trying to construct what a customs cutter's duties might look like. I agree there should be more watchstanders, which could be done by not manning weapons 100% and/or automating a lot of functions. Re: US under the Articles of Confederacy in the 1780s, I'm OK with that comparison, especially as it leads to the thought that some planets may not be paying their full weight in taxes to the UPF, and the possibility that some may want their local fleets strong enough to prevent UPF "tyranny." SWON: I have it, but not dealt with it. My preferred ship-combat rules are Full Thrust. (Well, actually, it's Star Fleet Battles, but that doesn't mix well with this setting.) Starfire would be a close second. |
September 6, 2013 - 2:59pm | Shadow Good points on mercenaries but this of course assumes the kind of mercenaries we see in the movies today. As with Doritoes and everything else there are more then just one flavor. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
September 8, 2013 - 9:14pm | Reading through the responses here, we have some great ideas popping up. Above all, we're agreed we want to work within cannon as much as possible:
Putraack: I wish the UPF were anti-tyranny, but if they were, Minotaur would probably be a very different place! Final comment: I have long thought that if there were inertia screens, they might actually form suitless-void protection. Think about it...you step outside and the air around you tries to leave...quickly and violently. But your inertia screen prevents that, and if it didn't, how hard would it be to modify to allow unsuited space protection? For that matter, might it be altered for protection anywhere, including underwater (supercavitation potential for vehicles even with "slight" leakage)? Sam Curry |
September 9, 2013 - 2:06am | Final comment: I have long thought that if there were inertia screens, they might actually form suitless-void protection. Think about it...you step outside and the air around you tries to leave...quickly and violently. But your inertia screen prevents that, and if it didn't, how hard would it be to modify to allow unsuited space protection? For that matter, might it be altered for protection anywhere, including underwater (supercavitation potential for vehicles even with "slight" leakage)? Perhaps these are latter developments as physicists better understand the underlying principles new applications of the technology are made. the priniciples of the interia screen can form a field around the wearer and prevent the escape of air giving the wearer a limited ammount of time while the air inside the field lasts (no lifesupport to freshen the air) It would be emergency equipment that you would automatically wear on board ship. You could use it to plug a hull leak much like they used it in STar Trek. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
September 9, 2013 - 5:06am | If an inertia screen held air in, your characters would suffocate to death in a matter of minutes. It's one of the personal defense screens that doesn't sap SEU when you leave it on either... |
September 9, 2013 - 9:03am | If an inertia screen held air in, your characters would suffocate to death in a matter of minutes. It's one of the personal defense screens that doesn't sap SEU when you leave it on either... In other words, it works on the Holtzman effect from Dune. Not surprised, as David "Zeb" Cook stated outright that the idea for the screen came from Dune, in one of the interviews. |
 September 17, 2013 - 9:06pm | Ok, the political entity that is the Council of
Worlds keeps UPF Spacefleet low on the budget until a war breaks out. Think -
you have some conservatives that want a small government and some (like Outer
Dramune) that don't want the UPF at all! So the analogy of the US Confederation
prior to the Constitution is spot on!
Next, the size of a crew of an Assault Scout is missing one important
crew member - the marine. In Warriors of the White Light, the PCs hire on as
marines and temp the crew. Do you think that this is not possible with other
UPF Assault Scouts and ships? You have a crew of 5 and a marine contingent of
8-12. Half the marines could cross-train with the crew. Besides, the main
positions you need cross-training is Piloting and Engineering. These marines
could man the "midnight" shift. As previously stated, when in combat
- everyone is on deck. This reduces (not nullify) the need for marines to man
weapons and Astrogation.
As in terms of the number of personnel in Spacefleet and the
Militia, remember that for every pilot, marine or engineer - there are 10
people supporting him. Even if some jobs were contracted out, that still leaves
a ratio of 4-1. That places the fleet at 18,000 + 4,500 (flyboys) for about
22,500 men and women - on the low end. High end is about 50,000. The militia is
2,500 to 5,500.
There was another article that compared the UPF+Militia to Sather.
The UPF had more Assault Scouts and Frigates vs Sather Destroyers and Heavy
Cruisers. I forget the end result but, I believe the size of the fleets is
about right. |
