Crew Requirements

[JFGarber]

I am revisiting T5 after a long hiatus, and am looking at the crew requirements of a larger vessel. All of my past designs have been at the PC group size, where crew requirements were driven by "Well, you need at least ONE pilot..."

All references are to the T5.09 .pdf file.

Page 306 states "c. Select staffing level and calculate the required number of crew." I'm afraid that I can't find any such calculations.

Let's say I have an engineroom with 240 tons of J-Drive, 47 tons of M-Drive, and 47 tons of powerplant as "mechanisms". These would generate (per page 306) 7, 2, and 2 control panels respectively. Control panels then get assigned to consoles (and I think that "console" is a generic term that includes workstations, etc.) Assuming a TL 13 vessel, a single workstation in
the engineroom could handle this since 7+2+2<13 and the workstation could handle two additional "tasks" or control panels. Maybe life support?

This workstation could be monitored by the computer, or by 1-3 crew depending on threat level.

That crew requirement seems tiny.

And a TL 13 computer could monitor up to 6 workstations (as a 5bis), each capable of running 13 control panels each representing 35 tons of ship. So a single crew sitting in front of the screen is good for 2,730 tons of ship (excluding fuel)?

That obviously doesn't address payload and special requirements if the vessel is a warship, explorer, or luxury liner. But if it's a commodity freighter there would be no special requirements and one crew seems absurd.

What am I missing?

The discussion above seems to only apply to monitoring. What about repairs? And, e.g., how many stewards are required per high passenger? That has nothing to do with consoles.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I haven't found any rules of thumb in T5.09, so I use Mongoose (and CT) crew rules instead.

A workstation with a brain can operate independently, without any operator, I believe.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Page 306 states "c. Select staffing level and calculate the required number of crew." I'm afraid that I can't find any such calculations.

Presumably refers to Table C: Staffing Levels on the same page. See Staffing Levels on p283.

... (and I think that "console" is a generic term that includes workstations, etc.)

Yes, see "Types of Consoles" on p283. In general an Operating or Control Console is required for shipboard operations.

Assuming a TL 13 vessel, a single workstation in the engineroom could handle this since 7+2+2<13 and the workstation could handle two additional "tasks" or control panels. Maybe life support?

A console can control any number of control panels, but can only perform a single Task or operation at the same time with full skill. See Multi-Tasking, p306.

C+S is the effective skill of the console, as in Characteristic + Skill.

For example you can connect all sensors' control panels to a single console, but then you can only fully operate a single sensor at the same time.

This workstation could be monitored by the computer, or by 1-3 crew depending on threat level.

Only one person at a tine can use a console. Several crew are required to keep it manned more than 8 hours a day (or so).

And a TL 13 computer could monitor up to 6 workstations (as a 5bis), each capable of running 13 control panels each representing 35 tons of ship.

I believe a computer can be connected to any number of consoles, but only perform "cells" number of simultaneous task. See "An Overview" sidebar, p517 and "The Power To Supplement Consoles", p519. For example the computer could operate additional sensors.

Simple Brains (p522, 525) can be cheap enough to be default on consoles, allowing then to operate unsupervised.

That obviously doesn't address payload and special requirements if the vessel is a warship, explorer, or luxury liner. But if it's a commodity freighter there would be no special requirements and one crew seems absurd.

What am I missing?

Nothing?

 

[ThornPlutonius]

I find no explicit formulae in the rules. Rather, my reading leads me to see it is a decision process that considers the nature of the ship's mission and technology. How much risk is the ship owner willing to take regarding what skills will be needed when? What size crew can the owner afford?

The crew size process seems to me to be something woven through all of the ship rules, sometimes receiving explicit reference and other times being left more implied than stated. Marc does state that the ship design process is to be done with frequent back-tracking and reconsidering of earlier decisions. I think it is a detail to be kept in mind while considering other aspects of the process, allowing it to come into focus in a more organic than mechanical process. I know I need a crew. So, I will keep that in mind while making other decisions that clarify the factors that affect and are affected by crew size.

T5.1 contains more detailed crew org charts along with discussions about ship organization, consoles (type, number, placement, etc.), functional needs, etc. See (when available) Tables 21-27 in Book 2. I am focused on reading the T5.1 rules right now and not thinking about how they may differ from 5.09.

[Ah! AnotherDilbert made a more detailed and specific post. Good.]

 

[whulorigan]

I find no explicit formulae in the rules. Rather, my reading leads me to see it is a decision process that considers the nature of the ship's mission and technology. How much risk is the ship owner willing to take regarding what skills will be needed when? What size crew can the owner afford?

The crew size process seems to me to be something woven through all of the ship rules, sometimes receiving explicit reference and other times being left more implied than stated. ...

I agree. The T5.09 crew-rules are a lot more "realistic" than in previous rulesets, with the consequence of being somewhat more involved in assigning crew. T5.09 does not have any of the simplistic mechanics of earlier editions that simply assign "X-number" of crew per "Y-tons" of drives, for example.

T5.09 seems to be asking you to install all of the consoles necessary to accommodate the control panels of all of the equipment, and note also how many control panels can be autonomously run by the installed ship's computer. Whatever consoles are left over need to be staffed/manned. And it is up to the designer to decide what those staffing levels are based on both economics and how the ship is likely to be used. Some positions are "watch-standing" positions that need constant monitoring (such as the Power Plant which is always in operation). Some positions may need watch-standers, but only at particular times (e.g. the Helm and SensOps/Commo - in Jump Space it is unnecessary to have these manned at all; in N-Space they need to be constantly manned for however long the ship is likely to be operating in N-Space (so do you need only one, or more than one to accommodate shift rotation for extended operations)). Other positions are non-watch standing "Day-worker" positions - you need to have one on board, but not constantly vigilant (e.g. Captain, Medic, Purser, etc). Other crew may be optional as desired.

Navy will have more crew than minimally necessary in order to accommodate all contingencies as well as efficiency in battle and replacement of battle losses. Civilian craft are less likely to worry about this, and will operate with smaller crews for both reasons of practicality and economic concerns.

And these decisions will impact the amount of living space that needs to be allocated for crew, which in turn has ramifications for crew efficiency and crew stress if not enough is allocated for their psychological needs.

 

[agorski]

I agree with all that's been said so far. T5's use of brains in consoles makes hard and fast crew size rules difficult so that's probably why they were left out. In my iPad app for Adventure Class Ships I let you define any kind of crew organization you want.

 

[Mako]

Given the advent of automation, even in the ancient 21st Century, seems to me that you can operate ships without any crew, if needed/desired.

Modern airliners, spacecraft, commercial trucks, and soon I'm told, even cars will have that capability now, if they don't already, and many do, so........

Might be a good idea to have an engineer capable of making ship repairs on board, just in case, though I suspect a 3000 series robot might be just as good, and can provide service 24/7/1005 when needed, unlike a human can.

 

[Timerover51]

I will be odd man out and say that I have far less confidence in computer technology that most of the forum. I would view a crew-less ship as a marvelous hijacking target, unless, of course, the ship is allowed to kill humans who are not following directions. I can see a crew-less ship landing at a Class D starport and the locals deciding that they would really like their own ship without having to have to play for it, and see how fast they can take over, or at least immobilize the crew-less vessel and then conduct a large-scale "chop shop" for parts.

As for riding in a self-driving car, no way.

I tend in my crew requirements to go with 4 hours on, 8 hours off watches, and crew accordingly.

 

[aramis]

Given the advent of automation, even in the ancient 21st Century, seems to me that you can operate ships without any crew, if needed/desired.

Modern airliners, spacecraft, commercial trucks, and soon I'm told, even cars will have that capability now, if they don't already, and many do, so........

Might be a good idea to have an engineer capable of making ship repairs on board, just in case, though I suspect a 3000 series robot might be just as good, and can provide service 24/7/1005 when needed, unlike a human can.

Modern airliners can do the job passably well, but a pilot is still better at landings, takeoffs, and congested airspace. Partly, it's the interaction with ATC, partly it's the ability to detect abnormal flight by intuitive feel... but also dealing with bird strikes, lightning strikes, fuel contamination, and a variety of other issues.

The impetus to improve it isn't that strong, because liability and legal requirements need a human in charge to blame, and the human can take over when the autopilot is struggling.

 

[JFGarber]

I hear what you folks are saying, and I'm glad to know that I've interpreted 5.09 correctly. I am in the more comfortable with mechanistic approach, but I can work through a watch bill if necessary.

Most of our discussions have been about normal operations. The airplane example noted above is a great one. A friend flies for a large international shipping group, and he's told me one more than one occasion that the plane could fly itself 99% of the time. It's the 1% where he makes his ridiculously large salary.

But I am also interested in repair, either battle damage for a combatant or wear-and-tear/maintenance for something on a "five-year mission". Megatraveller notes in the Ship Combat section that battlefield repairs are possible, but only if the full crew is intact. Staffing a console is great, but what about repairing the spinal while under fire? Robots?

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Maksim-Smelchak]

I hear what you folks are saying, and I'm glad to know that I've interpreted 5.09 correctly. I am in the more comfortable with mechanistic approach, but I can work through a watch bill if necessary.

I have found that a lot of T5 requires expansion to make more pragmatically applicable to games.

Staffing a console is great, but what about repairing the spinal while under fire? Robots?

I know MGT talks about automated ships and robotic crew. I don't recall as much mention in T5... yet.

Thanks for the responses.

Thanks for sharing your excellent inquiry.

Shalom,
M.

 

[Winged Cat]

Even in MgT, there is a not-mechanically-enforced limit that most AIs (prior to Virus, presumably) can not survive Jumpspace. Check the referee's info about the Essarray in the Tinath adventure.

 

[ThornPlutonius]

T5 does not explicitly mention automated vessels, but it does make it clear that consoles can include brains (electronic, positronic, or biological), AI, and downloaded human personalities (depending upon TL). It is not a great leap from there to AI-automated, if not fully sentient, starships when you bring the robotics rules into the picture.

 

[JFGarber]

Now that <would> be interesting. My daughter has always wanted to work for NASA. I can give her one better--"Honey, you ARE the starship. And let's work up a couple of drones or semi-autonomous robots for bar-hopping and dungeon crawling".

It would be very interesting, but I'd also need to discard about 90% of everything I've written up for her over the years.

 

[Mako]

Yea, that's the whole down-side to automation, since it eliminates the need for interesting humans or aliens, so probably isn't too interesting for gaming.

Still, given how advanced things are now, even with our backwards tech, I can imagine how sophisticated things might eventually become in 100 - 500+ years.

 

[phavoc]

Crew requirements can be very small for very large vessels where they are, at best, there to add some oil to the widgets or point the ship/plane to the destination (following the course laid out by electronics/gps).

Where things require humans is for events outside of programming, or where you are looking to combine the benefits of a human with the benefits of a machine. Humans are great at things machines suck at, and vice versa.

Today you have massive cargo vessels and supertankers crewed by 30-40 crew members. However these crew members don't do anything really to the ship other than get it from point A to point B. Nearly all maintenance is done in a port.

On the other hand you have 9,000 ton DD's (Arleigh Burke class) with a crew compliment of 330. The Atlanta class CL from WW2 had about the same displacement with nearly 800 crew. Weapons and technology change, as does automation making it easier to replace basic functions with machinery. But depending on the mission, having the right amount of bodies on board can make or break you vessel when it's deployed.

 

[Selandia]

My Crew Bill

It is actually the list of stations to be manned in the various circumstances that are likely to be meet, along with Who (PC or NPC) is assigned to that station.

There are two basic type of Bills: Watch keeping and Special stations

For the Watch keepiing bill, time the number of Watch.

So the Fair Trade, 200 dt courrier/merchant

Captain, Navigator, pilot
Watch keeping pilot
Chief engineer (PoPlant and J expert)
First Watch keeper (PoPlant and M)
Second Watch keeper (PoPlant and Life sup) and Gunner
First Steward and medic


Jump space Watch keeping
First Watch:
Captain, on bridge (monitoring systems & security)
first Watch keeping engineer, in engine

Second Watch:
Watch keeping pilot, on bridge (monitoring systems & security)
Chief, watch keeping in engine room

Day works (upon demand): Steward in passenger area
First Eng wakeep nursing the unused M Drive or taking over PoPlant to allow some LiSup maintenance or repairs by second wakeep

Real space Watch keeping
First Watch:
Captain on bridge, collision avoidance
first Watch keeping engineer, in engine

Second Watch:
Watch keeping pilot on bridge, collision avoidance
second watch keeping engineer, in engine room

Day works (upon demand): Steward in passenger area
Chief. nursing the down J Drive

Harbor Watch keeping
Night:
One person on bridge monitoring security and systems
Day:
wakeep pilot on bridge monitoring security and systems while Captain works the navigation and the engineers nurse the PP as it is on both in real and jump space, so avail for maintenance only in harbor while you are plugged on harbor's Po Grid

Confine water/space (approaching dock or any tricky non combat situation )

Captain at sensor and Tac plot
Wakeep pilot at helm
Chief at Bridge Eng console
First E wakeep at M drive for emergency manual overide
Second E wakeep at PoPlant for emergency manual overide
Steward at passenger control station


General quarter (battle station)

Helm: best pilot
sensor and Tac plot: the other pilot
Guns: Second E wakeep
Engine: Chief at Bridge Eng console or Engine room/ damage control back-up
Damage control station (ship's locker): first E wakeep & Steward as medic and helper

Standing for inspection, collision station and abandon ship station should also be made

Do they still have "man overboard station" in space?

fighting ship will have various subset of the Battle station

So a 6 person crew will contain enough people to fill every subset of the Crew Bill of the Fair Trade. you could manage it at 5 and dispense with an Eng if not gunned but ii will make for more harbor maintenance time. Even if gunned you may dispense of an Eng if the first damage control call leave the eng empty and a single person is avail for manual overide in the E room at Constricted space station.

The skill set may varies, of course: Steward as Gun and 2nd E wakeep as medic at battle station Chief as the M expert ... no gun…

The Pc should be doing their watch bill on "fitting out evening(s)" before leaving port, that way when the Ref throw a surprise wrench in heir party the question of who is where does not show up.

have fun

Selandia

 

[GrayPennell]

Dont forget tablets.

You can also add tablets so the whole ship turns into an open office space. The pilot is in his bunk during jump space and the Captain walks by with their tablet. Umm yeah..looks at his tablet, I ll need your Q24 report on the avionics by tomorrow."

Because of this I am seriously considering doing my lego scout ship bridge with just one pilot station with the rest bridge centered around a large 3D planning table where tablets can be plugged in.

The general move in Traveller has been away from the clunky 20t computers of 1970s IT knowledge to 21 century IT concepts. I have no real problems with the crew size reeducation as IT gets better. yes you could have 10000 AI ships in the core move cargo but we are about the players and we crew ships with them.