Bk2 crew rounding

[Supplement Four]

Here's a question (that could be answered if I would just dig out High Guard and read). We're talking about passengers. How about crew?

We'd have to shift over to Book 5, which I haven't read in a long time.

Do any of the extremely large capital ships have over 120 crew?

 

[McPerth]

A 100 ton vessel with 248 passengers needs two medics.

A 800 ton vessel with 375 passengers needs three medics.

What you really need in those cases is more space for the passengers :devil:.

Jokes aside, I understand you reasoning and agree with it

Incidentally, military ships apparently only need one medic regardless of crew size, since none of them are passengers. Even ship's troops have crew functions.

As we are in LBB2, I understand ship's troops are not part of the crew, as are not the troops just carried by the ship from place to place, so they would count as passengers.

IIRC the ship's troops being part of the crew comes at LBB5, but there the medical section is (asside fro mthe medical officer in the command section) simply ignored (or counted among the service crew), despite the Navy having a full separated medical branch in the Chargen :CoW:

 

[mike wightman]

The medical section rules are in HG1 - they were accidentally omitted from HG2 apparently and should be errata. Doing so invalidated every published design, but since they are virtually all broken anyway it's ok

There are the rules for big ship crews in LBB2, but they just add 5 command crew (CO< XO, 3 admin) and require a minimum of 10 crew per 1000t, no mention of extra medics.

 

[McPerth]

As for rounding crew numbers itself, I'd divide the crew sections into two separate categories:

1. Those that need (or may need) constant attention: Pilot (bridge crew)¹, ², engineering, stewards...
2. Those that only require to be manned at times: Navigator², gunners², medical³...

For those under the category 1, the rounded would be up, as you need at minimum what is told

For those under category 2, rounded is down (but sometimes with a minimum of 1).

Note 1: while pilot post may be left unmanned in jumpspace, you must be ready for constant monitoring when at normal space.

Note 2: in fact those positions don't need to be rounded according the rules

Note 3: while a patient may be serious enough to need constant monitoring, my guess is that in this case he/she will be put into low berth to be taken care once hospital is reached.​

 

[Supplement Four]

Are low berth passengers counted as passengers as for medical requirements?

 

[mike wightman]

I would say yes, since they are a passenger type.

 

[McPerth]

Are low berth passengers counted as passengers as for medical requirements?

In fact they probably require more monitorization than awake passengers, and sure medical help at the end of the voyage (that may well not end on a high TL planet with good starport that can take care of awakening by themselves). See as a comparison, that in MT medic crew is 1 per 120 awake or 20 cold berth passenger or crewmember.

 

[Supplement Four]

In fact they probably require more monitorization than awake passengers, and sure medical help at the end of the voyage (that may well not end on a high TL planet with good starport that can take care of awakening by themselves).

I disagree that a Medic has much to do with low berth passengers in CT. The evidence is that the low berths are practically automated.

The reason I say that is that anybody--Medic skill not needed--can revive a person from low berth, by rolling 5+.

That roll can only be improved by the character's health, or by an operator with Medic-2 or greater (which gives a +1 DM if this requirement is made, regardless of medical skill...a Medic-7 still only gets a +1 DM on that same roll.)

And, there is no roll to put a character into low berth.

So...that tells me that the berths need little to no monitoring. In fact, the standard Medic-1 that serves as ship's medic does not improve a person's chance any more than someone who knows nothing about medicine.

 

[Matt123]

Re medics and low berth passengers.

It could be a safety issue. The rules give a very high chance of death when using a berth, but are silent on the causes. A sizable portion may be due to using decades old automated equipment that eventually fails. Having a medic on hand to revive a passenger when the berth fails, may save the passenger.

 

[creativehum]

The rules give a very high chance of death when using a berth, but are silent on the causes. A sizable portion may be due to using decades old automated equipment that eventually fails. Having a medic on hand to revive a passenger when the berth fails, may save the passenger.

I really like the idea of old technology being part of the problem. I also think the process is inherently dangerous.

The price of Low Passage is 1/8th the cost of middle passage. If flying non-stop from LA to London cost $800, then low-birth is paying someone $100 to get you across the Atlantic by boat.

My apology is very specific on two points:

One, with Low Berth Passengers we're talking about people who need to go somewhere but can ONLY scrape together the $100 instead of $800. That gap is both small and, to those who don't have the money, huge. They need the trip, this is all they can afford, and they're willing to risk a 17% chance of death to do it.

I'm assuming then, that the implied Traveller setting is a setting of itinerate workers, that conditions aren't always that great for chunks of people on world-to-world, and some folks are willing to risk death to get a better shot somewhere else.

Two, I switched the low passage to a $100 boat trip across the Atlantic two show a) it's really a different technology, and b) how desperate and dangerous the trip is. Paying someone $100 to cross the Atlantic by boat means you're going cheap. And you might not make it to the other side. Because the guy who says he can get you across for $100 isn't running a very safe operation.

If we hold to the notion we're in a futuristic "Age of Sails" we need to remember that space travel is dangerous.

I've noticed that lots of fans of Traveller -- especially fans of the OTU -- assume everything works very well. My own reading of the rules (Books 1-3) suggests that it is a terse time in terms of technology and money, that there may be safety and security on some worlds, but that most worlds and the space between them are as rough as landscapes and seas of exploration and colonialism of our own world.

If you look at the shipping conditions for many desperate passengers traveling across the Atlantic you'll find that a 83% chance of survival might be standard for those willing to leave all behind to travel in circumstances that are, by definition dangerous, in the hope of something better.

I think the Low Berth rules are very dangerous by today's standards of travel. But if one uses the analogy of the past, they work out very well.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm an OTU fan and a CT fan, and I certainly don't assume things work well. The base chance to survive a low berthing situation is 5+. That's a 17% chance of death!

You gotta really want to get off a planet when chances are, 1 or 2 people, out of every 10, die when using that method.

Of course, if you've got a Medic-2, and you're healthy with an END 7+, you can cut your chance of perishing in half (8%) by lowering the success roll to 4+.

Still, that's roughly a 1 in 10 chance of dying by traveling low berth. Not too many people would take those odds for those stakes.

But, is it the technology? It's not yet perfected? Or, is it the general condition of the berths? Because, I don't think military berths have that same attrition rate.



As far as other stuff breaking down, don't forget the Yearly Maintenance roll that a starship must make if maintenance is neglected.



Just a note: T5 has an interesting rule for item/equipment/vehicle/starship maintenance that could easily be ported to CT.

 

[creativehum]

S4, my only point is, when I read descriptions of how people want the Third Imperium to work, and how it should work, it seems always to work with the efficiency of early-ear Soviet planners dreams. I'm not speaking of you, or anyone, specifically. (Especially since you don't assume the future works perfectly. So... not you.)

But, this was a thought I had reading about the expectations of low berth technology. It's a tangent, and I probably should have started a new thread -- if I was going to say anything at all.

Note: I took a quick look at High Guard. Couldn't find anything about different odds for lower berths in naval vessels. But, you are correct. Book 2 covers civilian and primarily commercial vessels. At the least, I bet naval vessels have the Med-2s on hand, while a 200 ton trader will usually have at best a Med-1.

 

[Supplement Four]

It's been years since I've read Book 5. I'd have to read it again. But, IIRC, the Frozen Watch could be revived with no loss of life at all.

 

[creativehum]

No rolls for loss from the Frozen Watch are listed.

But given the abstract nature of the Frozen Watch's place in the rules (they re-up the crew strength) I just assumed that the losses were abstracted out as well.

I'm more than willing to believe naval ships have better tech and better maintenance. After all, the people they are waking are their people and they have an investment in them. A merchant running a route through a subsector does not have the same investment in his passengers.

 

[Matt123]

No rolls for loss from the Frozen Watch are listed.

But given the abstract nature of the Frozen Watch's place in the rules (they re-up the crew strength) I just assumed that the losses were abstracted out as well.

I'm more than willing to believe naval ships have better tech and better maintenance. After all, the people they are waking are their people and they have an investment in them. A merchant running a route through a subsector does not have the same investment in his passengers.

I think you have probably hit the nail on the head, both with abstracting out any low berth deaths in HG and the Navy's (assumed) rigorous maintenance.

I'll add to this that Bk2 puts a cost that can likely be assumed to be the cheapest available. Competitors with new equipment, maintenance programs certified by independent third parties and medics on hand at every stage will likely charge more for a much lessened chance of death.

 

[rancke]

I have, reluctantly, been persuaded, by Aramis and others quoting historical examples, that dangerous means of transportation are not inherently implausible. There were and probably will always be people who are desperate enough to use such travel arrangements.

But I have another problem with CT low berths. I simply don't want interstellar travel in my TU to be restricted to the rich and the desperate. I want the middle classes to have a shot at it too. I want tourists and pilgrims and students and salesmen and minor bureaucrats and all sorts of odds and sods. I want drifters with more than a year of travel behind them. I want interstellar travellers to reflect a rich tapestry of life. And if that means I have to make my TU deviate from the OTU, so be it.

Fortunately, I don't have to. CT was superceded 30 years ago, and later versions retconned the lethality of low berths. I don't know what T5 has to say (and this is not the forum to ask), but I'm quite satisfied with the low lethality of MgT low berths.

I realize that all this is moot here on the CT board. Here all I can say is, not in MY Traveller Universe!


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

The reason for the low berth death rate is that low passage was lifted directly from the Dumarest novels.

In the novels the death rate is the result of the low berth pods being designed to transport animals rather than humans.

In the 3I setting the low berth capsules are designed for human use so there should be close to zero chance of death.

 

[rancke]

The reason for the low berth death rate is that low passage was lifted directly from the Dumarest novels.

In the novels the death rate is the result of the low berth pods being designed to transport animals rather than humans.

In the 3I setting the low berth capsules are designed for human use so there should be close to zero chance of death.

I couldn't agree with you more. Though for plot purposes I do have a rare condition that will kill off anyone placed in low berth. The rate of occurrence is one in several thousands, far below the resolution of the rules.

I also have a Low Berth Syndrome to explain why people who can afford to prefer to travel out of low berths:

LIBRARY DATA: [non-canon]
Low Berth Syndrome: Rare debilitating condition brought on by traveling by low passage. Victims suffer from aches and pains for a period ranging from a few days to several months. On occasion the condition can prove to be chronic. Victims of LBS must avoid further travel by low passage until the condition has cleared up or risk aggravating the malady.​

Hans

 

[creativehum]

Hans,

When I was looking over the Low Berth rules last night, I thought, "This really is crazy high. I understand a shot at death. But this?"

I was already aware of the reference Mike pointed to. And I thought, "I'm going to change these numbers." Unlike your TU, mine is going to be a more "primitive" place... rougher, more dangerous, travel more exceptional. (There's no better or worse here, just different.)

So, there will still be a chance of death, but not so high. (I haven't looked at the MegaTraveller rules for years, so I can't recall at all the changes they made.)

Probably...
Throw 4+ to survive.
END 5- -1DM
END 6+ +1DM
Medical-2 +1DM

Still harsh. But a healthy passenger with a skilled doctor on hand will definitely survive.

(I travelled Ireland back in the fall. Kept seeing the monuments to the Famine. Came across one about The Coffin Ships. Once I started doing research, I must admit, I couldn't let them out of my head. Such circumstances very much inform me of the look and feel of a rougher aspect of a Traveller game. On one side of a stretch of water, the healthy nobles of England. On the other side, people starting, packing themselves on boats in hopes of a better life, most of them dying on the way.)

 

[McPerth]

(I haven't looked at the MegaTraveller rules for years, so I can't recall at all the changes they made.)

See IE, page 87.

Basically it was a medical task, and if failed, you rolled for mishap, doing damage according to its severity. As even a destroyed result meant 3D6 of damage (though permanent, and needing hospitalization), death was quite rare unless the character was very weak or already wounded (one of the reasons to put him/her to cold sleep).

Most time, the result of a failed roll was only some temprary disability (akin Hans' LBS, though not so detailed).