HG crew rounding carification

[Vladika]

Late afternoon PST Vladika,

You have hard copy manuals onboard , what are you nuts that stuff and the fix-it program are on the computer.

Computer? Oh yeah, that thing in the corner that used to have flashing lights and bells going off...Or was that the Christmas tree? Oh well, it was one or the other...

 

[snrdg082102]

Computer? Oh yeah, that thing in the corner that used to have flashing lights and bells going off...Or was that the Christmas tree? Oh well, it was one or the other...

You mean there is a major violation of Imperium Inster-stellar by jumping without a computer. There's no place like home, clicking heels three times.:rofl:

Thanks Vladika, I needed some humor.

 

[McPerth]

For civilian ships, I cannot see the crew size varying with ship size at all. In the Real World, a cargo ship of 1500 tons is going to have about the same size crew at one of 40.000 tons, as long as the engine set up is about the same.

timerover, I think the variation usually occurs because you get more of something in those extra dTons. It might be passengers, or gunmounts, or it might be a more complicated and larger engine(s). You're right that doesn't always mean more crew in a particular specialty, and HG has different rules depending on what gets larger.

I agree with Timerover51 here that HG is mostly dealing with military crafts, while the crew requirements are not applicable to civilian ones.

To put an example, if you have a TL 15 J1 M1 PP1 30000 dton ships, you'll need 15 command staf (5/10000 dton), 15 engineering (1/100 dton of drives) and about 90 maintenance crew(3/1000 dton). This will be regardless what do you do with the remaining 25000 dtons.

If those 25000 dtons are pure cargo hold, I find the command and maintenance quite overstrengthed. If you build 2000 statrooms for passengers (imagaine a luxury cruiser), you don't need (according to HG rules) any more steward...

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy McPerth,

Originally Posted by timerover51
For civilian ships, I cannot see the crew size varying with ship size at all. In the Real World, a cargo ship of 1500 tons is going to have about the same size crew at one of 40.000 tons, as long as the engine set up is about the same.

I agree with Timerover51 here that HG is mostly dealing with military crafts, while the crew requirements are not applicable to civilian ones.

Yep, HG is, in my opinion, geared to combat vessels.To be honest I have not designed that many civilian ships using HG rules, reversed engineered the published designs without thinking about the crew.

Originally Posted by Fritz_Brown
timerover, I think the variation usually occurs because you get more of something in those extra dTons. It might be passengers, or gunmounts, or it might be a more complicated and larger engine(s). You're right that doesn't always mean more crew in a particular specialty, and HG has different rules depending on what gets larger.

To put an example, if you have a TL 15 J1 M1 PP1 30000 dton ships, you'll need 15 command staf (5/10000 dton), 15 engineering (1/100 dton of drives) and about 90 maintenance crew(3/1000 dton). This will be regardless what do you do with the remaining 25000 dtons.

If those 25000 dtons are pure cargo hold, I find the command and maintenance quite overstrengthed. If you build 2000 statrooms for passengers (imagaine a luxury cruiser), you don't need (according to HG rules) any more steward...

In my opinion stewards are subsumed into the Service Crew calculations, which is similar to how, again my opinion, CT Book 2 Starships Pilot requirement is subsumed into the Command Section.

I've figured that, similar to Book 2, the HG crew calculation requirements are the ideal standard. If the numbers seem to high cut them back, per the Consolidated CT Errata the minimum personnel for the Command Section is 11.

If that minimum doesn't feel right consider looking in Book 2 for hulls > 1,000 tons page 16 which states "the crew should also include a commanding officer (or captain), his executive officer, and at least three administrative personnel."

Alternately, I would use the Book 2 Steward rules to determine how many are needed and then mention in the fluff that there are x number stewards that are part of the Service crew calculations.

I'd, try to remember anyway, to put in a note explaining the deviation from the HG Crew calculation.

I'm wondering if using the Book 2 crew requirements, with appropriate modifications, could be applied to HG designs.

 

[McPerth]

In my opinion stewards are subsumed into the Service Crew calculations, which is similar to how, again my opinion, CT Book 2 Starships Pilot requirement is subsumed into the Command Section.

I've figured that, similar to Book 2, the HG crew calculation requirements are the ideal standard. If the numbers seem to high cut them back, per the Consolidated CT Errata the minimum personnel for the Command Section is 11.

Alternately, I would use the Book 2 Steward rules to determine how many are needed and then mention in the fluff that there are x number stewards that are part of the Service crew calculations.

I agree stewards are included in the service crew, but even there you need the same (to keep with the 30000 dton ship example) regardless you have all 25000 dtons free assigned to cargo/freight or you mount 6000 staterooms on them

If that minimum doesn't feel right consider looking in Book 2 for hulls > 1,000 tons page 16 which states "the crew should also include a commanding officer (or captain), his executive officer, and at least three administrative personnel."

I'd, try to remember anyway, to put in a note explaining the deviation from the HG Crew calculation.

I'm wondering if using the Book 2 crew requirements, with appropriate modifications, could be applied to HG designs.

I also agree command section includes the bridge crew (which IMHO should be aside), but it still seems to me too large for a commercial ship (mostly if its mostly a freighter, as I assume a lineer requires more administrative crew).

In this (and in other aspects too, for what's worth), I like more the MT system, where crew is dependent on the CP (the complexity of the ship) and the computer (taht helps overcome this complexity). In the case of command section (in MT independent that the bridge crew) its exclusivelly personnel dependent, as are service and medical crew (as I understand it, medical crew in HG is included in command and service sections), the larger the crew is, the larger those sections are.

 

[Timerover51]

For those interested, attached is the link to the US Coast Guard website with the Instruction Manuals. Marine Safety Manual, volume 3, covers vessel manning standards for just about all types of ships presently operating under the US flag. It might give some idea as to what may be required of star ships, but then again, it is the Real World.

http://www.uscg.mil/directives/listing_cim.asp?id=16000-16999

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy McPerth,

Thanks for the reply and good points.

I don't have my MT: RM handy so I maybe wrong but doesn't hull tonnage figure into the control point calculations at least once or a couple of times?

MT basically enchanced Book 2/Book 5 crew calculation while, like the rest of the MT design sequnce, increased complexity.

Not that I mind the more detailed system when I have the time to get down to that level.

I agree stewards are included in the service crew, but even there you need the same (to keep with the 30000 dton ship example) regardless you have all 25000 dtons free assigned to cargo/freight or you mount 6000 staterooms on them



I also agree command section includes the bridge crew (which IMHO should be aside), but it still seems to me too large for a commercial ship (mostly if its mostly a freighter, as I assume a lineer requires more administrative crew).

In this (and in other aspects too, for what's worth), I like more the MT system, where crew is dependent on the CP (the complexity of the ship) and the computer (taht helps overcome this complexity). In the case of command section (in MT independent that the bridge crew) its exclusivelly personnel dependent, as are service and medical crew (as I understand it, medical crew in HG is included in command and service sections), the larger the crew is, the larger those sections are.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning timerover51

For those interested, attached is the link to the US Coast Guard website with the Instruction Manuals. Marine Safety Manual, volume 3, covers vessel manning standards for just about all types of ships presently operating under the US flag. It might give some idea as to what may be required or star ships, but then again, it is the Real World.

http://www.uscg.mil/directives/listing_cim.asp?id=16000-16999

,

Thanks for the real world link which might, if presented right, get added to the errata as a clarification for crewing of civilian ships in Traveller.

 

[McPerth]

Howdy McPerth,

Thanks for the reply and good points.

I don't have my MT: RM handy so I maybe wrong but doesn't hull tonnage figure into the control point calculations at least once or a couple of times?

MT basically enchanced Book 2/Book 5 crew calculation while, like the rest of the MT design sequnce, increased complexity.

Not that I mind the more detailed system when I have the time to get down to that level.

Hi again Tom,

in MT CP are exclusively cost and TL dependent, so tonnage only enters into equation as long as a larger hull uses to be more expensive that a smaller one (but this can be unexact if armor and config reverse the figures).

I see MT crew calaculations as quite different from Bk2/Bk5, as most sections are CP(either whole or just affected section's)/(computer CP multiplier) modified according to the section we talk about, while command, stewards and medical crew are dependent on previous crew calclualtions and flight dependent on subordinate crafts (in this case, they are quite akin Bk5). Some sections (e.g. bridge and engineering) have also a minimum.

As an example, the gunnery section is depending on the CP of weapons and screens, regardless the number of batteries your ship might have.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

If that minimum doesn't feel right consider looking in Book 2 for hulls > 1,000 tons page 16 which states "the crew should also include a commanding officer (or captain), his executive officer, and at least three administrative personnel."

This leapt out at me. You would need the administrative personnel in a starship, where you don't need them in a RW commercial ship today. Why? That pesky communications-is-only-as-fast-as-the-ship thing. You can't reach back and grab personnel records from the home office, you can't call them up when the broker tells you the account is empty, you can't ask them about disciplinary advice. Yes, a lot of the information is in a computer file on the ship, but the administrative personnel are there to handle things (on a big ship).

I know this point (about admin personnel) wasn't really being argued, but it's something to keep in mind: how is the starship different from a giant floating box?

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Fritz_Brown,

This leapt out at me. You would need the administrative personnel in a starship, where you don't need them in a RW commercial ship today. Why? That pesky communications-is-only-as-fast-as-the-ship thing. You can't reach back and grab personnel records from the home office, you can't call them up when the broker tells you the account is empty, you can't ask them about disciplinary advice. Yes, a lot of the information is in a computer file on the ship, but the administrative personnel are there to handle things (on a big ship).

I know this point (about admin personnel) wasn't really being argued, but it's something to keep in mind: how is the starship different from a giant floating box?

Interesting observation and a good question.

However, to me the question How similar is a starshsip to a sea going sewer pipe, aka submarine?

 

[aramis]

Howdy Fritz_Brown,



Interesting observation and a good question.

However, to me the question How similar is a starshsip to a sea going sewer pipe, aka submarine?

Some of the physical requirements are the same.

Several factors are not.

Situation	Traveller Ship	Submarine
External Environment	0-5 Atm, 0-400°K	250-310°K, 1-20+ Atm
Internal Environment	O2, CO2, heat, cooling, humidity, gravity	O2, CO2, heat, humidity
Expected Duration, Port to port	1.25 week	2-9 months
ED, maintenance to maintenance	1 year	6-18 months*
ED, Resupply to resupply	1.25 weeks	1-18 months**
Turn Around Time	0.25-1 weeks	2-12 months***
Acceleration	1-6G	0.1-0.5G
Evacuation Options	none in jump. Up to a month before benign environment in habitable system worlds. Vacuum evac possible when not in jump.	up to a hour to benign environment, unless floatation compromised.
Call for rescue	impossible in jump, up to a month in an inhabited system	up to 2 weeks, depending upon type of rescue. Surface rescue seldom more than 6 hours.
Typical Number of Crews	1	2-3†

* Note that normal is 6-9 months, and is port-to-port time, as well.
** mission types may cause resupply to be needed in the field.
*** based upon deployment schedules.
† some have two, some have 3, depending upon class and mission type, as well as current praxis for the navy in question.

 

[snrdg082102]

After 1:30 PM PST McPerth,

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
Howdy McPerth,

Thanks for the reply and good points.

I don't have my MT: RM handy so I maybe wrong but doesn't hull tonnage figure into the control point calculations at least once or a couple of times?

MT basically enchanced Book 2/Book 5 crew calculation while, like the rest of the MT design sequnce, increased complexity.

Not that I mind the more detailed system when I have the time to get down to that level.

Hi again Tom,

in MT CP are exclusively cost and TL dependent, so tonnage only enters into equation as long as a larger hull uses to be more expensive that a smaller one (but this can be unexact if armor and config reverse the figures).

I see MT crew calaculations as quite different from Bk2/Bk5, as most sections are CP(either whole or just affected section's)/(computer CP multiplier) modified according to the section we talk about, while command, stewards and medical crew are dependent on previous crew calclualtions and flight dependent on subordinate crafts (in this case, they are quite akin Bk5). Some sections (e.g. bridge and engineering) have also a minimum.

As an example, the gunnery section is depending on the CP of weapons and screens, regardless the number of batteries your ship might have.

Thanks for the reply and reminding me that, with the exception of ship's troops, crew is calculated by price.

I finally located my hard copy of MT: RM prior to looking at this post which shows the ship's troops formula Cr = ((H/1000) x M), H = to Hull tons.

Of course I should have looked at the electronic copy I have on the computer , then I wouldn't have tried relying on my faulty memory system.

Spinal weapons calculate personnel based on tonnage, 2 personnel are required per bay, and turrets 1 per battery. There is a recommendation that there be at least 1 petty officer for each type of weapon which I interpret to mean if there is 1 gunner for that weapon then the gunner is a petty officer.

A TL 12 HG hull has a Model 6/fib and 5 turrets. If the turrets are individual batteries then 5 gunners are required. 1 battery of 5 turrets requires 1 gunner. The number of turret gunners depends on how many turrets are grouped to for a battery. Of course the minimum number is 1 gunner.

If I have this right, been a while, a similar TL 12 MG hull with a Model 6/fib, with a CP of 45, and 1 turret with a cost of Cr 750,000. Turret CP = (750,000/100,000) x 12 = 7.5 x 12 = 90. Cg = 90/45/10 = 0.2

In MG 5 turrets have a CP of ((750,000 x 5)/100,000) x 12 = (3,750,000/10,000) x 12 = 37.5 x 12 = 450. Cg = 450/45/10 = 10/10 = 1.

If I performed the math right I think that HG can get close to the MT method, at least for gunners.

Of course I am probably out to lunch as usual.

Thanks again for the thought provoking info. Now I'll have to take a nap my brain has had a work-out.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy aramis,

Only one word, WOW.

Some of the physical requirements are the same.

Several factors are not.

Situation	Traveller Ship	Submarine
External Environment	0-5 Atm, 0-400°K	250-310°K, 1-20+ Atm
Internal Environment	O2, CO2, heat, cooling, humidity, gravity	O2, CO2, heat, humidity
Expected Duration, Port to port	1.25 week	2-9 months
ED, maintenance to maintenance	1 year	6-18 months*
ED, Resupply to resupply	1.25 weeks	1-18 months**
Turn Around Time	0.25-1 weeks	2-12 months***
Acceleration	1-6G	0.1-0.5G
Evacuation Options	none in jump. Up to a month before benign environment in habitable system worlds. Vacuum evac possible when not in jump.	up to a hour to benign environment, unless floatation compromised.
Call for rescue	impossible in jump, up to a month in an inhabited system	up to 2 weeks, depending upon type of rescue. Surface rescue seldom more than 6 hours.
Typical Number of Crews	1	2-3†

* Note that normal is 6-9 months, and is port-to-port time, as well.
** mission types may cause resupply to be needed in the field.
*** based upon deployment schedules.
† some have two, some have 3, depending upon class and mission type, as well as current praxis for the navy in question.

Very interesting bit of work which I really think is great stuff. The only quibbles I have are with the maintenance. I was on the crew doing the various maintenance chores which never seemed to end at sea or in port. Okay, being on an SSBN there was some relief, being on a fast attack is different. In fact being a SSN sailor caused me to stress out very badly, to much time as a boomer sailor.

 

[Timerover51]

This leapt out at me. You would need the administrative personnel in a starship, where you don't need them in a RW commercial ship today. Why? That pesky communications-is-only-as-fast-as-the-ship thing. You can't reach back and grab personnel records from the home office, you can't call them up when the broker tells you the account is empty, you can't ask them about disciplinary advice. Yes, a lot of the information is in a computer file on the ship, but the administrative personnel are there to handle things (on a big ship).

Actually, your big cruise ships do carry administrative personnel because of the size of the crew, the number of different nationalities on board, and also the continual rotation of crew on and off the ship as their 3 month duty runs out. They also need administrative personnel to handle passenger disembarkation through customs, and emergency passenger changes. So on large ships, you did pick up some admin personnel.

I know this point (about admin personnel) wasn't really being argued, but it's something to keep in mind: how is the starship different from a giant floating box?

If it is carrying cargo, not a whole lot different, if it is carrying passengers, then more of a moving hotel.

While there are analogies to a submarine, the primary purpose of a commercial vessel, be it an seagoing wet ship or a starship is to carry on commerce, as cheaply and as efficiently as possible. Aside from a small number of cargo-carrying subs built over the years, and possibly the German Type 14 refueling tanker subs, a.k.a. "milch cows", just about all subs have been built as warships of one type or another, so you can only push that analogy so far.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Ah, again it appears that I am hideously incorrect on trying to make any correspondence between the Real World and the rules.

Heh. It's sorta like an old paranormal show - some things just can't be explained. o:

I just had to give a better reference: Charlie Daniels Band, The Legend of Wooley Swamp.

There's some things in this world you just can't explain.

Actually, your big cruise ships do carry administrative personnel because of the size of the crew, the number of different nationalities on board, and also the continual rotation of crew on and off the ship as their 3 month duty runs out. They also need administrative personnel to handle passenger disembarkation through customs, and emergency passenger changes. So on large ships, you did pick up some admin personnel.

Very good point. And that might get even more so when you're talking different worlds, and whether it's the liner's responsibility to aid their passage through the extraterritoriality line.

so you can only push that analogy so far.

Ditto on being a good point. You have to use one analogy for the economics, another for the design, and yet another for stocking up, perhaps. And, none of them are perfect.

 

[aramis]

Howdy aramis,

Only one word, WOW.




Very interesting bit of work which I really think is great stuff. The only quibbles I have are with the maintenance. I was on the crew doing the various maintenance chores which never seemed to end at sea or in port. Okay, being on an SSBN there was some relief, being on a fast attack is different. In fact being a SSN sailor caused me to stress out very badly, to much time as a boomer sailor.

I was referencing the deep maintenance, which, as I understand, is part of most turn-arounds in port, not routine maintenance (which is the same for both - constant.)

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning PST aramis,

I was referencing the deep maintenance, which, as I understand, is part of most turn-arounds in port, not routine maintenance (which is the same for both - constant.)

Both routine and deep maintenance are done in port. SSBNs, when I was in, would perform some maintenance during turn-over, but most was done by the on-coming crew. SSNs with single crews perform maintenance all the time. Repairs in port are done by both the crew and repair facility personnel.

When I was in we used a Planned Maintenance System (PMS), which scheduled preventative maintenance for each system, IIRC, at least on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and annually. There were some other maintenance tasks, I think the term used was cyclic, that got down when in dry dock or under special conditions while still in the water using approved methods.

Each system using the PM system had checklists formatted similarly to Traveller's LBBs listing the number of bodies needed to perform the maintenance, how many man hours the maintenance takes, tools and equipment needed to get the job done. The body of the checklist, usually called a card, has the steps to perform and expected results to ensure the system is operating within specifications.

Of course things may have changed since I've been retired.

Silly question have I drifted very far off the topic of HG crew rounding clarification?

 

[McPerth]

After 1:30 PM PST McPerth,

Thanks for the reply and reminding me that, with the exception of ship's troops, crew is calculated by price.

I finally located my hard copy of MT: RM prior to looking at this post which shows the ship's troops formula Cr = ((H/1000) x M), H = to Hull tons.

Of course I should have looked at the electronic copy I have on the computer , then I wouldn't have tried relying on my faulty memory system.

Spinal weapons calculate personnel based on tonnage, 2 personnel are required per bay, and turrets 1 per battery. There is a recommendation that there be at least 1 petty officer for each type of weapon which I interpret to mean if there is 1 gunner for that weapon then the gunner is a petty officer.

A TL 12 HG hull has a Model 6/fib and 5 turrets. If the turrets are individual batteries then 5 gunners are required. 1 battery of 5 turrets requires 1 gunner. The number of turret gunners depends on how many turrets are grouped to for a battery. Of course the minimum number is 1 gunner.

If I have this right, been a while, a similar TL 12 MG hull with a Model 6/fib, with a CP of 45, and 1 turret with a cost of Cr 750,000. Turret CP = (750,000/100,000) x 12 = 7.5 x 12 = 90. Cg = 90/45/10 = 0.2

In MG 5 turrets have a CP of ((750,000 x 5)/100,000) x 12 = (3,750,000/10,000) x 12 = 37.5 x 12 = 450. Cg = 450/45/10 = 10/10 = 1.

If I performed the math right I think that HG can get close to the MT method, at least for gunners.

Of course I am probably out to lunch as usual.

Thanks again for the thought provoking info. Now I'll have to take a nap my brain has had a work-out.

Hi again Tom,

I fully forgot about ship's troops, but you're right (I guess the fact that I mostly designed civilian ships under 1000 dton in MT, so without them, helped me to forget).

And you're right about the gunners needs (1 gunner), but not, IMHO about the conclusion. See that you'll need this single gunner regardless if you group all your turrets in a single battery or if you have them as 5 independent turrets.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello McPerth,

Hi again Tom,

I fully forgot about ship's troops, but you're right (I guess the fact that I mostly designed civilian ships under 1000 dton in MT, so without them, helped me to forget).

And you're right about the gunners needs (1 gunner), but not, IMHO about the conclusion. See that you'll need this single gunner regardless if you group all your turrets in a single battery or if you have them as 5 independent turrets.

I'll agree that my example of 5 turrets falls short, as mentioned my brain was in serious need of a nap. Let me try this again.

TL 12 HG hull has a Model 6/fib and 10 missile turrets. Per the rules 10 turrets are automatically a battery. One battery of 10 turrets requires 1 gunner with more being added as desired.

If I've pulled the MT rules together right this is how I see the crew requirement.

TL 12 MG hull with a Model 6/fib, with a CP of 45, and 10 missile turrets cost of Cr 7,500,000. Turret CP = (7,500,000/100,000) x 12 = 75 x 12 = 900. Cg = 900/45/10 = 20/10 = 2. Like HG, MT requires that 10 turrets using the same weapon system are automatically a battery, MT RM page 88. The battery requires 2 gunners based on the crew calculations.

Of course I could have missed something in MT that allows there to be 1 gunner per battery which throws my arguement right down the disposal tube.