CT Errata HG - Crew Sections

[Matt123]

I'm using this rule (from High Guard, Optional Rules, JTAS 14 and adopted in the CT Consolidated Errata) for the first time in a Clusters Campaign.

Gotta say, it feels broken.

For example I have the following vessels.
A 315,000tn ship with 2500 crew, 315 crew sections of 8 crew each.
A 999,999tn ship with 4562 crew, 1000 crew sections of 4-5 crew each.

IMHO it possibly works ok for ships under 5,000tn, but otherwise dealing with crew sections of 4 to 20 odd crew seems the complete opposite of "abstracting" crew casualties.

Dunno what the answer is, the original rule was too chunky, this one seems too fine. Maybe for ships 20,000tn and over, a crew section per 10,000tn?

Dunno. Any other ideas?

 

[far-trader]

Off hand I can't recall if Trillion Credit Squadron had a rule for/like this or not. Worth a look if you have it. I might check later if I remember.

Your "section per 10,000tons" sounds like a good start. It matches the launch facility rule iirc (one free launch facility per 10,000tons capable of launching or recovering 1 craft per turn, I think)

 

[Matt123]

TCS doesn't change the HG rule of a crew section per power of 10 crew.

0-9, 1 section
10-99 2 sections
100-999 3 sections, etc.

Don's Consolidated errata adopted the JTAS article, I think on MM's recommendation. But IMHO it go's too far the other way.

Maybe...
"Every ship 100tn plus has a minimum of 2 Crew Sections or 1 per 10,000 tn."

 

[dean]

TCS doesn't change the HG rule of a crew section per power of 10 crew.

0-9, 1 section
10-99 2 sections
100-999 3 sections, etc.

Don's Consolidated errata adopted the JTAS article, I think on MM's recommendation. But IMHO it go's too far the other way.

Maybe...
"Every ship 100tn plus has a minimum of 2 Crew Sections or 1 per 10,000 tn."

Like you, I don't think the rule as written is entirely sensible, and like you I think that MWM's suggestion is too far the other way, BUT, then again I think sorting crew sections based upon the hull size is silly either way.

There's no hard-and-fast reason to limit ourselves to the 0-9 range of codes that exist for our convenience in accounting anyway, so house rules can vary a lot.

Personally, I'd base it upon the ship's crew size, rather than hull size:

1 crew - Code 1
2-10 crew - Code 2
11-100 crew - Code 3
101-1000 crew - Code 4
1001-2000 crew - Code 5
2001-3000 crew - Code 6
3001-4000 crew - Code 7
4001-5000 crew - Code 8
5001+ -Code 9

 

[rancke]

I would try 3 sections per power of 10:

1-3 1 section
4-6 2 sections
7-9 3 sections
10-30 4 sections
31-60 5 sections
61-99 6 sections
etc. etc.

If that's still too much, maybe 2 sections per power of 10.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

Any of those ideas has good potential.

Don, knock if you are present & let us know, first if a change is possible & then your preferances for discussion with MM. If we/I can do any more, happy to help with sample draft rules etc.

Cheers

 

[skyth]

I'm using this rule (from High Guard, Optional Rules, JTAS 14 and adopted in the CT Consolidated Errata) for the first time in a Clusters Campaign.

Gotta say, it feels broken.

For example I have the following vessels.
A 315,000tn ship with 2500 crew, 315 crew sections of 8 crew each.
A 999,999tn ship with 4562 crew, 1000 crew sections of 4-5 crew each.

Are you sure you don't have it backwards? I'm pretty sure (At least in Megatraveller) that the first ship would have 8 crew sections of 315, not the other way around.

 

[Matt123]

Are you sure you don't have it backwards? I'm pretty sure (At least in Megatraveller) that the first ship would have 8 crew sections of 315, not the other way around.

Differant rule set. This pertains only to High Guard which is part of Classic Traveller.

 

[aramis]

Differant rule set. This pertains only to High Guard which is part of Classic Traveller.

I'm fairly certain you have it backwards. The Crew number is the number of sections, not the men per section.

 

[Matt123]

I'm fairly certain you have it backwards. The Crew number is the number of sections, not the men per section.

ok, I've checked...

"A ship would have one section of crew for each 1000 tons of hull, rounded up to a whole number. Each section has an equal amount of crewmembers in it."

From Don's Consolidated CT Errata.

So My 315,000 tn ship is definately meant to have 315 crew sections of 8 crew each.

 

[skyth]

I kind of like the idea of crew sections. In standard High Guard, one crew-1 hit and the ship is effectively out of the battle. The larger the ship, the more spread out the crew is and the less likely that any individual hit would kill a lot of them.

 

[DonM]

I have (mostly) returned, so "KNOCK"!

Personally, I always liked the JTAS/MT method, as I didn't want the crew taken out easily. However, I would agree that it just doesn't quite work as well as it should. The HG crew method is bad, and the JTAS/MT method is probably too much of a good thing.

But I don't have any thoughts on a better proposal at the moment...

 

[Matt123]

BUMP

In light of Andrews question relating to how to document ship crew factors/sections in HGS on ships over 30kton.

Andrew in essence has found that using current errata, every ship over 30kton would have a USP Crew Factor of "Z" with "Z" defined in the notes as being 31+ based on Tonnage/1000. Which looks a little odd.

Has anyone any further thoughts on how to establish Crew USP ratings? I think we mostly all agree the original system is too course and the errata is too fine and produces some odd results. (eg: The Tigress has 500 Crew Factors under the errata or 4 Crew Factors under the original rules.)

Meantime, I'll suggest that we should revert back to the original crew rules until a better solution is established.

 

[AndreaV]

I suspect I may have an idea that puts us at least part way towards a solution

Number of Crew Sections = Tonnage / (Size Code * 100).

This gives:
Tigress 173 sections of 29
Plankwell 77 sections of 22
Kokirrak 77 sections of 24
Gionetti 15 sections of 17
Arakoine 22 sections of 33
Atlantic 32 sections of 21
Nolikian (battlerider) 10 sections of 31

Seems to be a step in the right direction

 

[AndreaV]

BTW the latest working build of HGS supports uses this rule. Perhaps it might help if a few people ran a couple of designs through to see what kind of results they get?

If anyone wants a copy of the (untested and full of half finished functionality) 1.2.1 send me a private message or email me.

 

[AndreaV]

Also this rule seems to nicely weaken battleriders. ForEx

Ship: Jmes
Class: Jmes
Type: Battlerider
Architect: Andrew Vallance
Tech Level: 15

USP
         BR-H106NJ5-E99909-999J9-0 MCr 10,356.200 8.2 KTons
Bat Bear             2   1 11111   Crew: 97
Bat                  2   1 11111   TL: 15

Cargo: 4 Crew Sections: 5 of 20 Frozen Watch (x2) Fuel: 1,804 
EP: 1,804 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 8
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Backups: 1 x Model/9fib Computer 1 x Bridge

Architects Fee: MCr 103.562   Cost in Quantity: MCr 8,284.960

Three crew hits and its out. Even with two frozen watches, still only need 5 crew hits to kill this.

 

[Matt123]

I suspect I may have an idea that puts us at least part way towards a solution

Number of Crew Sections = Tonnage / (Size Code * 100).

This gives:
Tigress 173 sections of 29
Plankwell 77 sections of 22
Kokirrak 77 sections of 24
Gionetti 15 sections of 17
Arakoine 22 sections of 33
Atlantic 32 sections of 21
Nolikian (battlerider) 10 sections of 31

Seems to be a step in the right direction

Its definitely a step in the right direction, but its still orders of magnitude larger than the existing crew codes. The Tigress, Plankwell & Kokorrak originally has a crew factor of 4, this raises them to double & triple digits.

Adding to this, it doesn't solve your programming concern, anything over (it appears, the size of Atlantic) 75 ktons, will use one of your variables for the crew factor. And in the main, its ships over 75ktons that are most likely to need all the variables available.

 

[Matt123]

Personally, I'd base it upon the ship's crew size, rather than hull size:

1 crew - Code 1
2-10 crew - Code 2
11-100 crew - Code 3
101-1000 crew - Code 4
1001-2000 crew - Code 5
2001-3000 crew - Code 6
3001-4000 crew - Code 7
4001-5000 crew - Code 8
5001+ -Code 9

This is the sort of thing (thanks Dean) that is most likely to work.

Up to 1000 crew, that is virtually all ships up to around 100 ktons, retain the same code as in the original rules. BB's like the Kokoriak & Plankwell with crews just over 1000, gain a factor. While the Tigress with 4000+ crew gains 3 factors to Crew factor 7.

When you consider there is no movement to increase the number of Crew-1 results on the damage tables, it should become apparent that increasing the ability to absorb causalities exponentially tips the game into an area where normal Crew-1 hits don't matter. Large crews should have a gaming "edge", not be effectively immune.

 

[AndreaV]

Its definitely a step in the right direction, but its still orders of magnitude larger than the existing crew codes. The Tigress, Plankwell & Kokorrak originally has a crew factor of 4, this raises them to double & triple digits.

Adding to this, it doesn't solve your programming concern, anything over (it appears, the size of Atlantic) 75 ktons, will use one of your variables for the crew factor. And in the main, its ships over 75ktons that are most likely to need all the variables available.

The programming concern I can work around (already have in fact) by simply replacing anything over 30 with another symbol (I'm working on a $) . A little inelegant, but it will do.

 

[AndreaV]

This is the sort of thing (thanks Dean) that is most likely to work.

Up to 1000 crew, that is virtually all ships up to around 100 ktons, retain the same code as in the original rules. BB's like the Kokoriak & Plankwell with crews just over 1000, gain a factor. While the Tigress with 4000+ crew gains 3 factors to Crew factor 7.

When you consider there is no movement to increase the number of Crew-1 results on the damage tables, it should become apparent that increasing the ability to absorb causalities exponentially tips the game into an area where normal Crew-1 hits don't matter. Large crews should have a gaming "edge", not be effectively immune.

Its the granularity that matters. This is still far too course. Anything with less than 2000 crew is killed by a Crew-1. Too course.