Commercial ship crewing

[HG_B]

Based on what is available in the way of intelligent robots and their low cost, commercial ships would most likely NOT carry organic stewards and engineers (excepting a Chief engineer). In well charted space I can see the elimination of a separate astrogator also. Organic crew positions would be minimal. Only the Master, Chief Eng. and a few Dept. Heads.

 

[rancke]

Bsed on what is available in the way of intelligent robots and their low cost, commercial ships would most likely NOT carry organic stewards and engineers (excepting a Chief engineer). In well charted space I can see the elimination of a separate astrogator also. Organic crew positions would be minimal. Only the Master, Chief Eng. and a few Dept. Heads.

Are you suggesting that the crewing rules only apply to military ships, free traders, and shipbuilders, but not to regular commercial ships?

I can see how navies may use excess crewmembers for the sake of redundancy, but I can't figure any reason why shipbuilders would build commercial ships with room for crew that won't be shipped (presumably the slop in ship design rules would allow for closets to hold the robots).

And free traders that were designed from the keel plate to be free traders with full organic crews could have staterooms for a full crew, but ships that started out as company ships and turned free trader late in life would have to use passenger staterooms for the crew.

It all seems very unlikely to me. Much better to amend the robot rules to conform to the canonical setting.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Are you suggesting that the crewing rules only apply to military ships, free traders, and shipbuilders, but not to regular commercial ships?

No. Where did I state anything of the kind?

I can see how navies may use excess crewmembers for the sake of redundancy, but I can't figure any reason why shipbuilders would build commercial ships with room for crew that won't be shipped (presumably the slop in ship design rules would allow for closets to hold the robots).

They wouldn't build them with too much slop. But, we know from modern freighters (Earth) that they have some.

And free traders that were designed from the keel plate to be free traders with full organic crews could have staterooms for a full crew, but ships that started out as company ships and turned free trader late in life would have to use passenger staterooms for the crew.

That is correct as they were designed PRE MgT rules. The editors just ported over without redesign. Almost none of the designed in MgT core books take advantage of the economical design rules either. It is called poor editing.

It all seems very unlikely to me. Much better to amend the robot rules to conform to the canonical setting.
Hans

As there is no logical reason, per the design rules to NOT have them, and indeed would put them at a disadvantage econ wise that you wouldn't find a commercial ship NOT crewed as I stated. But, in any case, the design rules are what they are for THAT version. THUS, the ships would be designed a economically as possible.

This is a thread on the rules a written. I'd rather do a separate thread for proposed rule changes than mangle the two together.

 

[rancke]

No. Where did I state anything of the kind?

It's the only way to reconcile your suggestion with the existing ship crew rules: to say that those rules don't apply to commercial ships.

That is correct as they were designed PRE MgT rules. The editors just ported over without redesign. Almost none of the designed in MgT core books take advantage of the economical design rules either. It is called poor editing.

Agreed. Robot rules that contradict the canonical setting are indeed poorly edited.

As there is no logical reason, per the design rules to NOT have them, and indeed would put them at a disadvantage econ wise that you wouldn't find a commercial ship NOT crewed as I stated. But, in any case, the design rules are what they are for THAT version. THUS, the ships would be designed a economically as possible.

That's precisely the point. There is no logical reason, per the design rules and yet the setting does not feature predominantly robot-crewed ships. It follows that there must be something missing or mistaken in the design rules (as they apply to the OTU).

This is a thread on the rules as written. I'd rather do a separate thread for proposed rule changes than mangle the two together.

Fair enough. As long as it's not a discussion about whether the rules fit the OTU, but a discussion of the logical ramifications of the rules, I have no quarrel with it (and little interest in it). Carry on and have fun.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

It's the only way to reconcile your suggestion with the existing ship crew rules: to say that those rules don't apply to commercial ships.

Nope. The crew are still there. They just aren't all organic. No proposed changes to crewing requirements. The rules only require that positions are filled by those with the required skill set.



As I asked politely, pls start another thread if you'd like discuss MgT rule changes rather than the topic of this thread.

 

[McPerth]

Robots may be cheaper than crews, but they also have several downbacks (at least IMHO):

First and foremost, you must remember that true artificial intelligence is beyond TL15 (and I guess that's also true in MgT), so any problem not foreseen by the programer will be unsolved, or have only the department chieff to solve it, being the only true intelligence with some knowledge in the area that can solve it.

Also, I guess the Pilot must be human, only if because people will want someone (not someting) to blame should any serious problem arise. You can not sue a robot before the courts (at least according Canon, AFAIK).

Again my guessing, but I foresee stewards also as people, not robots, as customers would be more comfortable. Any pesky passenger (and I guess there will not be rare) asking for something unusual will always get a better answer from a person that can understand him (or arge him) than from a robot whose answer will just be "that's not in the menu". You use to want a little empathy form your bartender, aside from your drinks.

I expect similar problems with a full robotic medical crew (while robotic aid may help).

For engineering, aside from what I said above about unexpected problems, as the engineering robots (or repair drones) are depicted in MgT, they are too small should any strength be needed (e.g. to move a heavy/large part).

Also, in case of pirate attack, hickjack attempt, etc., the crew would be too small to repel it (and I guess security robots would be seen as unneded, as you cannot double posts with robots, they being specifically built for their mission).

 

[rancke]

Nope. The crew are still there. They just aren't all organic. No proposed changes to crewing requirements. The rules only require that positions are filled by those with the required skill set.

The rules indicate that each crewman gets a stateroom, do they not? A robot crewman wouldn't need one. It follows that the crew positions established by the crewing rules are non-robots.

As I asked politely, pls start another thread if you'd like discuss MgT rule changes rather than the topic of this thread.

As I indicated, I don't see any reason to talk of rules changes if you're not talking about reconciling the robot rules with the OTU setting.

I do not, however, see any reason why I should not comment on statements and inferences that I consider fallacious, if I feel like it.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Robots may be cheaper tan crews, but they also have several downbacks (at least IMHO):

First and foremost, you must remember that true artificial intelligence is beyond TL15 (and I guess that's also true in MgT),

That' isn't the case in Mgt.

Also, I guess the Pilot must be human, only if because people will want someone (not someting) to blame should any serious problem arise.

That's why I left the Master position (there are pilot quals for that lic) as per my post.

Again my guessing, but I foresee stewards also as people, not robots, as customers would be more comfortable.

Per the robot rules in MgT replacing these types of position with robots is widespread.

I expect similar problems with a full robotic medical crew (while robotic aid may help).

Not per the rules. In Mgt The auto doc is a robot that acts completely independently to be a doctor and surgeon. There is no need for the operator to have medical training.

For engineering, aside from what I said above about unexpected problems, as the engineering robots (or repair drones) are depicted in MgT, they are too small should any strength be needed (e.g. to move a heavy/large part).

They have average str. But, if you needed a larger frame you just use the servitor bot frame.

Also, in case of pirate attack, hickjack attempt, etc., the crew would be too small to repel it (and I guess security robots would be seen as unneded, as you cannot double posts with robots, they being specifically built for their mission).

If a merchant is already dead in the "water" it is suicidal to fight. Also, you are incorrect about double posts with MgT bots. They SPECIFICALLY often carry concealed weapons (stewards) and can fight.

 

[HG_B]

The rules indicate that each crewman gets a stateroom, do they not?

If they need one.

Automated Positions

The ship’s computer can cover several positions if it is running the
appropriate software:

• Fire Control programs can either act gunners or aid existing gunners.
• A ship equipped with repair drones and Auto-Repair software acts as damage control.
• A ship running an Intellect program and Expert Pilot can be the pilot.
• A ship equipped with repair drones and running an Intellect program and Expert Engineer (M-drive or J-drive) can be a drive
engineer.

As indicated I was asking NICELY to not derail. If you persist in doing so anyway, I will act.

 

[rancke]

If they need one.

No such qualification in the rules. On page 110 of the Core Rules one stateroom per crewmember and pssenger is required. Double occupancy is allowed for non-commercial vessels, but the limit is two to a stateroom and the reason given is that any more would strain the life support equipment. This would obviously be nonsense if the majority of the crew (or indeed any of them) were robots.

As indicated I was asking NICELY to not derail. If you persist in doing so anyway, I will act.

And I NICELY indicated my willingness to comply. So please drop the attitude.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Based on the crewing rules allowing automated positions it would be interesting to redesign some of the basic ships. The operating costs would go down and enable a better profit margin for the Free Trader types.

 

[rancke]

Automated Positions

The ship’s computer can cover several positions if it is running the
appropriate software:

• Fire Control programs can either act gunners or aid existing gunners.
• A ship equipped with repair drones and Auto-Repair software acts as damage control.
• A ship running an Intellect program and Expert Pilot can be the pilot.
• A ship equipped with repair drones and running an Intellect program and Expert Engineer (M-drive or J-drive) can be a drive engineer.

Can't find those rules anywhere in the Core Rules. Nor have I found a single example of a ship that took advantage of these options. It would appear that they are not common.

As indicated I was asking NICELY to not derail. If you persist in doing so anyway, I will act.

Then don't keep up the discussion here. If you absolutely must answer (and you're very welcome to do so), start another thread and do it there. I do not feel any obligation to refrain from replying to posts in a thread in the same thread.


Hans


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Can't find those rules anywhere in the Core Rules.

I posted the rule a couple posts down about automated crew positions. You are now simply trying to start a fight. I will act according to board rules.

 

[rancke]

I posted the rule a couple posts down about automated crew positions.

My reply was written without seeing that post.

You are now simply trying to start a fight.

No, I'm trying to a) get you to provide references for your quotes, and b) make you aware of what the Core rulebook has to say.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

After reviewing all the commercial ships in the CRB they can all just have 2 organic crew. The remaining positions could be automated and either a reduction in staterooms (with a corresponding life support savings and increase in cargo space,) or more middle/high passengers taken on. The design would have to be based on expected average passengers carried per jump in the area the ship has planned operations.

 

[robject]

Regardless, if they're self-aware and capable of decisions, crew is not slave labor, regardless of its packaging.

Thus, each position is filled by NPCs, and each NPC will have preferences and hobbies, just like everyone else. If anything, their salaries will be higher, since they are more likely to be always-on and consistently skilled without fatigue. I'd say they would charge a very high premium.

I'd say that that premium eats into whatever profits are gained by not having organic crew (e.g. more cargo space, lower life support costs). It may dwarf gains -- I would not be surprised at all if a robot can command a salary five times that of a human, simply because it's continually fresh. That's better than having round-the-clock human operators.

Can robots multitask in MgT?

 

[HG_B]

Regardless, robot crew are not slave labor. They're NPCs, and will have preferences and hobbies, just like everyone else.

Not in MgT. They are not self aware. They ARE machines that labor for free. They are autodocs, repair "crabs", Astrogation pgms coupled with agent or Intellect pgms, sevitor bot's that cook and clean unless they need maintenance. Per the RAW, no they don't get paid. Sorry.

 

[McPerth]

That' isn't the case in Mgt.

Per the robot rules in MgT replacing these types of position with robots is widespread.

Not per the rules. In Mgt The auto doc is a robot that acts completely independently to be a doctor and surgeon. There is no need for the operator to have medical training.

You must be alluding to some MgT book I have not had access to...

WHile CB tells that at TL 11 the first true artificial intelligence become posible, I'm not so sure about self-awareness and being sophonts, as I didn't find it.

I don't remember a single MgT ship that has those positions filled by robots in what I've read of it, the closer being my own design barges for the jump frame.

They have average str. But, if you needed a larger frame you just use the servitor bot frame.

But they are too small to move large parts. And for larger ones, I guess they would be too rigid frames to reach places a man could with dificulty (as long as vac suit is not needed, before you say it )

If a merchant is already dead in the "water" it is suicidal to fight.

That's why I also talked about hickjacking attempt.

 

[robject]

I don't remember a single MgT ship that has those positions filled by robots in what I've read of it, the closer being my own design barges for the jump frame.

I think that's one of the points he's making -- that the background changed with MgT but the ship designs haven't changed with it.

An alternative conclusion is that the change was made without realizing the impact of that change.

He notes that these things are essentially slave labor, which means you get all the benefits of a ship and none of the crew requirements. It sounds to me like an important decision in ship design was removed, on the assumption that people flying the ship isn't as interesting as, or is far more game-limiting than, automated ships.

Granted, most role-playing is done away from the ship's controls. Even ship combat is rather sparse in role-playing opportunities.

On the other hand, human crew operating the ship is a powerful space opera trope. Leaving it behind may not be as fun.

 

[HG_B]

You must be alluding to some MgT book I have not had access to...

It's ALL in the CRB.

But they are too small to move large parts. And for larger ones, I guess they would be too rigid frames to reach places a man could with dificulty (as long as vac suit is not needed, before you say it )

No. It is covered in the section on robots. It is also explicitly stated that you can use them for those crew positions. As far as designs go, they were just ported design spec per design spec from older editions. They didn't even bother to use optimum cost rules for the ships. Basically, the designs as listed are bizarre when compared to the design rules.

This is probably the 1st popular edition that is trying to reach past current Earth TL's outside of drives, hulls and weapons.