Commercial ship crewing

[robject]

I don't think cheaper and fewer crew adds anything to the game.

I'll check the rules and see how much these robots cost. Perhaps my character can buy a squad of them to accompany her on any missions she does. They can blast anyone who gets in her way.

 

[HG_B]

This is only a good idea if you think ships are too expensive and should be automated.

Ships ARE too expensive. To the point of the designs being barely able to be used because of econ. Not my doing. The authors of MgT apparently thought so to. And, Marc didn't veto the rules making them LESS expensive to build and operate.

 

[robject]

Ships ARE too expensive. To the point of the designs being barely able to be used because of econ. Not my doing.

What you're saying is that ships don't play well with the trade rules. Okay -- we can talk about that in a new topic if you like.

But I suspect the robot rules weren't written to change ship economics. Let's face it, that would be the tail wagging the dog anyhow. Therefore, this is an unintended side effect. So I'd like to think about why the robot rules were introduced as they are. What was their purpose? Was it simply a cool new use for technology? An implication of technology (and if so, was it thought through (and if thought through, why does the rest of the book appear to ignore it?)?)? Or is there a design purpose for the game that they are a part of?

 

[HG_B]

What you're saying is that ships don't play well with the trade rules. Okay -- we can talk about that in a new topic if you like.

No. Expense is always relative. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.

But I suspect the robot rules weren't written to change ship economics.

If you look at crewing rules, they obviously WERE written to reduce cost. Otherwise it wouldn't show Free traders using the automated Astrogator as default instead of a paid crew member. Nor would they have equipment buy option to replace Steward crew members.

 

[HG_B]

At the very least I'm providing an education on the MgT Core rules. Seems that lot of Old timers don't play and know this version of Traveller. It is a good version. A lot of the tech is post A.D. 1970's but the game is better for it IMO.

 

[mike wightman]

I've noticed that MgT managed to sneak in some tech upgrades - electronic sights for rifles with an AI program to aid aiming for example

I like the updates - they make a lot of sense considering where technology is in the real world.

A TL 15 ship should be a lot more like the Andromeda Ascendant and a lot less like the USS Nimitz in space...

 

[HG_B]

I've noticed that MgT managed to sneak in some tech upgrades - electronic sights for rifles with an AI program to aid aiming for example

I like the updates - they make a lot of sense considering where technology is in the real world.

A TL 15 ship should be a lot more like the Andromeda Ascendant and a lot less like the USS Nimitz in space...

Yep. Because of MgT I even ditched the diesel generator back up generators on my star ships!

Seriously though, MgT makes it feel high tech rather than slide rule level tech of CT. CT even ignored Moore's Law at the time of writing. It would be a good idea for writers of Sci-Fi games to at LEAST consult those familiar with current day science and tech while making rules.

 

[Timerover51]

I don't think cheaper and fewer crew adds anything to the game.

I'll check the rules and see how much these robots cost. Perhaps my character can buy a squad of them to accompany her on any missions she does. They can blast anyone who gets in her way.

I heartily agree with you there. In MTU, I go with a larger ship crew and revised economics to allow for it.

 

[GamingGlen]

I don't think cheaper and fewer crew adds anything to the game.

Yes it does. It adds OPTIONS.

Perhaps the prices of those options need adjusting. The ship software prices, IMO, are way too high, for software that has probably been pirated a couple gajillion times over the many hundreds of years. But then, maybe those prices are what the military pays for, not commercial users :smirk:.

 

[Marchand]

Robots per MGT are TL11 for cargo bots and repair crabs, up to TL13 for a servitor (humanoid butler type).

Shame if your repair crab running engineer (j-drives) breaks down on some TL3 backwater. "So... how do we get out of this system now?"

For starship operators, this comes down to relative reliability of drones vs people. Each ref's call to make for their TU. OTU with MGT rules "physics" presumably implies robots break down a lot.

For what it's worth, I would up those tech levels by a couple of notches too.

 

[Marchand]

I was going to edit my previous post but actually the following is a completely different point.

Before we get in too high a dudgeon about what MGT robots do to OTU ship designs, it's worth reflecting that OTU ship designs are incredibly crew-light.

Can you imagine how hard it would be for you and 2 mates, even properly trained, to run a Type A2? Not just as an emergency, but every day, month in, month out?

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier),

The crew on a bulker typically consists of 20 to 30 people, though smaller ships can be handled by 8. The crew includes the captain or master, the deck department, the engineering department, and the steward's department.

Yet, CT ship designs can work with 3 or 4 crew. That could imply there is a fair bit of automation behind the scenes.

One way to read the CT ship design rules could be that a lot of the automation is handwaved / subsumed into the famously big computers.

If MGT ship design got a rewrite, I would think along the lines of upping crew requirements (towards GURPS IW levels, where you do need about 8 crew on a free trader), but being generous on letting robots pick up some of the strain, so long as there was a human "department head" in each specialism.

 

[mike wightman]

I think I posted this pretty recently on another thread: when you look at the typical profile of a free trader operation you don't actually spend much time in normal space. A few hours getting to the jump limit, a week in jump space, a few hours to make it to port. During the flight time you will have your full crew doing what they do technically - monitoring the computers and pressing the buttons that let the computer fly the ship. During the week in jump space you can go to a watch system or even just rely on the computer to set off an alert on your smart phone. The actually machinery is totally reliable, multiply redundantly backed up and probably has computerised/robotic minor maintenance and repair routines built in.

Put another way, the low crew requirements are due to the ship just about being a robot itself. The crew is supervisory - most of the time.

I can see no reason why you couldn't have an expert robot perform the crew oversight function, or even (as someone up thread suggested) put in a bigger computer and let the ship run itself with remote slaves/drones.

 

[HG_B]

OTU with MGT rules "physics" presumably implies robots break down a lot.

No where in the MgT rules does it point t that. Just the opposite in fact looking at small ship crew requirements. Also, the EXTREME low crewing levels denote that almost no critical systems involve much moving machinery. Almost everything is "solid state" or SO over engineered and with multiple redundant systems that if something breaks it can be safely ignored until you reach a star port.

Also, I'm extrapolating from the RAW. Within that context discussing rewriting the core rules of MgT isn't relevant.

 

[McPerth]

I was going to edit my previous post but actually the following is a completely different point.

Before we get in too high a dudgeon about what MGT robots do to OTU ship designs, it's worth reflecting that OTU ship designs are incredibly crew-light.

Can you imagine how hard it would be for you and 2 mates, even properly trained, to run a Type A2? Not just as an emergency, but every day, month in, month out?

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_carrier),

The crew on a bulker typically consists of 20 to 30 people, though smaller ships can be handled by 8. The crew includes the captain or master, the deck department, the engineering department, and the steward's department.

Yet, CT ship designs can work with 3 or 4 crew. That could imply there is a fair bit of automation behind the scenes.

One way to read the CT ship design rules could be that a lot of the automation is handwaved / subsumed into the famously big computers.

If MGT ship design got a rewrite, I would think along the lines of upping crew requirements (towards GURPS IW levels, where you do need about 8 crew on a free trader), but being generous on letting robots pick up some of the strain, so long as there was a human "department head" in each specialism.

As I said many times, I find CT crew requirements more game wise than realism wise, as I think it right that the crew is too small, but this allows a typical gaming group (3-5 players) to run a ship without the need of leaving posts unmanned or NPCs to mann them. MgT is more "realist" (IMHO), but you need a larger crew to fully mann a ship, so needing either a larger group (usually unweldy), NPCs (with the ups and downs that implies) or being shorthanded and leaving some posts unmanned

The main branch where more people would be needed, I still say, is the passengers (pursuers) crew, as a single steward would be hard pressed (and have few sleep) if a single passenger becomes pesky, and that is regardless how many time you spend in real space and how many in jumpspace (unlike pilot or navigator, that are what I guess Mike is refering to).

 

[HG_B]

The main branch where more people would be needed, I still say, is the passengers (pursuers) crew, as a single steward would be hard pressed (and have few sleep) if a single passenger becomes pesky, and that is regardless how many time you spend in real space and how many in jumpspace (unlike pilot or navigator, that are what I guess Mike is refering to).

Yes. That's true. Which is why I use the paradigm used on Earth today with freighters hauling incidental passengers. (no high passage, passengers get meals with crew and room made up. Do own laundry, et al.) One of 'em gets out of hand and it's Medical Fast to the rescue.

 

[Timerover51]

As I said many times, I find CT crew requirements more game wise than realism wise, as I think it right that the crew is too small, but this allows a typical gaming group (3-5 players) to run a ship withut the need of leaving posts unmanned or NPCs to mann them. MgT is more "realist" (IMHO), but you need a larger crew to fully mann a ship, so needing either a larger group (usually unweldy), NPCs (with the ups and downs that implies) or being shorthanded and leaving some posts unmanned

The main branch where more people would be needed, I still say, is the passengers (pursuers) crew, as a single steward would be hard pressed (and have few sleep) if a single passenger becomes pesky, and that is regardless how many time you spend in real space and how many in jumpspace (unlike pilot or navigator, that are what I guess Mike is refering to).

Hmm, I run the NPC crew members, and aside from giving me the chance to have some fun, not at the expense of the players, it gives me a way of feeding information to the players, nudge them in the right direction, and keep them on the straight and narrow. It also keeps them from using the NPC as cannon fodder, aka "security" persons.

 

[McPerth]

Hmm, I run the NPC crew members, and aside from giving me the chance to have some fun, not at the expense of the players, it gives me a way of feeding information to the players, nudge them in the right direction, and keep them on the straight and narrow. It also keeps them from using the NPC as cannon fodder, aka "security" persons.

Also I use to use NPCs on this role (hints or information without some character "hearing voices"), but I always have wanted PCs be the majority of the party (in this case the crew).

That is easy if you need a CT crew of 4-5 (pilot, engineer, steward, medic and navigator if the pilot cannot fill the role) plus gunners if you want, so 5-7 crewmembers) for a trader, but when average MgT crew is 6-7 (adding 2 pilots) plus gunners, assuming your engineer and stewards are skilled enough in all engineering field (more likely you'll need 2-3 each minimum, for stewards if you want to carry high passengers) this becomes harder, as the crew can easily be in the 8-10 range, and my playing groups use to be 3-5 people.

Of course you can run it with minimal crew, but most engineering fields are likely to be at 0 skill level, and, unless you have a steward 3+ (or 2 steward 1+), you cannot fill your staterooms with high passengers (a steward 1 can fill a free trader's staterooms with middle passengers, though).

 

[Marchand]

No where in the MgT rules does it point t that. Just the opposite in fact looking at small ship crew requirements. Also, the EXTREME low crewing levels denote that almost no critical systems involve much moving machinery. Almost everything is "solid state" or SO over engineered and with multiple redundant systems that if something breaks it can be safely ignored until you reach a star port.

Also, I'm extrapolating from the RAW. Within that context discussing rewriting the core rules of MgT isn't relevant.

I don't think you've understood the point I made. I was seeking an explanation as to why people wouldn't just use robots as crew in a universe that worked according to MgT rules. The breakdown point is about the only logical explanation I can think of.

I don't follow the connection you make between multiple redundancy and minimal crewing. Systems with multiple redundancy but requiring lots of human decision inputs will need lots of crew.

 

[HG_B]

I don't think you've understood the point I made. I was seeking an explanation as to why people wouldn't just use robots as crew in a universe that worked according to MgT rules

They do use them.

 

[HG_B]

I don't think you've understood the point I made. I was seeking an explanation as to why people wouldn't just use robots as crew in a universe that worked according to MgT rules. The breakdown point is about the only logical explanation I can think of.

I can't either. But as the rules has them being used, I don't worry about that.

I don't follow the connection you make between multiple redundancy and minimal crewing. Systems with multiple redundancy but requiring lots of human decision inputs will need lots of crew.

1) In Mgt there is minimal human input needed. 2) Redundancy means that if something breaks, you can wait until you reach port to fix and thus, don't have to carry as many crew to work on such items.

But, maybe we are taking past each other. The downside of non face to face comm. In any event. How do you crew up and use or, not use high tech on ships in your game?