AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So the Engineers have workstations both on the bridge an in Engineering (14)?
Seats on a STARSHIP BRIDGE
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If the reactor might blow,
and you don't want to glow,
assigned to where you turn the key,
the bridge is the place to be.
and you don't want to glow,
assigned to where you turn the key,
the bridge is the place to be.
Engineering stations are for maintenance, nobody is supposed to be in engineering during normal operations (IMTU); per MgT1/Cepheus/Kosmic there are crab type robots-drones that can be controlled by the engineers from the bridge.
casquilho
SOC-13
I admit, I never thought much about it because I did not picture the crew sitting on the bridge except during lift off, landing, entering jump, or exiting jump. I figured one would be there as a watch during other times, but I always pictured them moving around. Not that I got that from the rules, just from the movie in my head so to say. 
Yeah, probably just a normal watch going from station to station as the daily routine, this vessel also carries a complement of up to ten marines, and has detention cells. Typical duty is patrolling the space lanes, often in pairs. J2 M6.I admit, I never thought much about it because I did not picture the crew sitting on the bridge except during lift off, landing, entering jump, or exiting jump. I figured one would be there as a watch during other times, but I always pictured them moving around. Not that I got that from the rules, just from the movie in my head so to say.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. You need to be on the bridge to hack into stuff.
2. Personnel need to be seen, and heard.
That's what those lapel-pin communicators are for. Much more polite than trying to shout across the room.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
I see the bridge as the spot you do command and control of the ship from, not everything. My bridges would have at the smallest level just one or two positions for a pilot and copilot who also double as navigator.
Going up in size, you add a dedicated navigation position, mostly for in-system operations where the navigator is plotting the positions of other space traffic and assisting the pilot(s) in course and heading. The next position added is a sensor and communications officer.
On very large ships, these positions might have assistants to spread the workload out some bringing the bridge crew when fully manned up to 6 to 10.
Engineering is done from engineering, not the bridge. If the ship is a combatant, it would have a separate CIC with separate crew there to operate and coordinate the weapons. That keeps the bridge from becoming a cacophony of voices and action going on. If you start putting every ship's function on the bridge, you end up with chaos.
Going up in size, you add a dedicated navigation position, mostly for in-system operations where the navigator is plotting the positions of other space traffic and assisting the pilot(s) in course and heading. The next position added is a sensor and communications officer.
On very large ships, these positions might have assistants to spread the workload out some bringing the bridge crew when fully manned up to 6 to 10.
Engineering is done from engineering, not the bridge. If the ship is a combatant, it would have a separate CIC with separate crew there to operate and coordinate the weapons. That keeps the bridge from becoming a cacophony of voices and action going on. If you start putting every ship's function on the bridge, you end up with chaos.
casquilho
SOC-13
I agree mostly. My one additional comment would be there could be a seat for special, ship specific functions. For example, a survey scout ship may have a comm station that controls and receives data from the survey drones. Thus, not flooding the pilot station with excess data traffic. ,
But I do agree with your overall comment.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
As I understand it warships will have an engineer on the bridge. Less a Scotty, more an enlisted/PO liaison to clarify what engineering is reporting. So the exact opposite of confusion, to reduce error.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
Those don't have to be on the bridge. That could be done from another location on the ship, for example a compartment next to the drone bay. I'd think that would be mission specific rather than something you have all the time to deal with, scouts being flexible in what the mission is.I agree mostly. My one additional comment would be there could be a seat for special, ship specific functions. For example, a survey scout ship may have a comm station that controls and receives data from the survey drones. Thus, not flooding the pilot station with excess data traffic. ,
But I do agree with your overall comment.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
Not on any warship I've ever been on. All engineering is handled from an EOS (Engineering Operating Station). On a large warship, like a carrier, each engine room has an EOS and then there's a central control station that coordinates everything. All the bridge cares about are, the ship is moving, and the lights are on.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The way I think of it is in terms of departments (kinda).
Engineering and Gunnery departments get "chiefs" of the department when there's more than one crew member in those departments. I figure that the department chief MAY be on the bridge during "red alert" situations to coordinate with the captain and/or executive officer (which could be the pilot and/or navigator in command). So it's not that they HAVE TO be on the bridge, just that for some craft it might be preferred that they be on the bridge.
Launches and recoveries of subordinate craft and/or zero-g cargo transfers while on orbit can potentially require delicate coordination "between departments" depending on the docking arrangements being used (if any). For some types of craft that might mean that it's better to have those workstations in the same compartment (the bridge), while for others it might be better to keep them separate.
This is something that I've been (re)discovering with my own pondering(s) in starship design. Essentially it comes down to a matter of workload for individual crew members. Just because the RAW says you can mix 'n' match any two crew positions into a single person doesn't necessarily mean that it's wise to do so (even on ACS, where every added crewman on payroll is another stateroom+life support expense). And although it's always possible to "multi-department" crew skills and positions (because the RAW lets you do it without restriction), as soon as you scratch the surface and start thinking about the question of recruiting for those multi-role positions you can start running into some real bottlenecks.
Even something as classical as the Pilot/Navigator position (an OLD favorite) ... that requires Pilot-2/Navigation-2 skill (minimum) in order to be able to perform both roles can be something of a hassle. That's basically 4 skill points in 1 person, instead of 2 skill points in 2 people (Pilot-1 and Navigator-1). Point being that in a setting with "millions of spacers" in it, there's going to be "some" NPCs who have the requisite combination of Pilot-2/Navigation-2 in order to pull double duty, but the "pool" of prospective personnel is going to be a LOT smaller than the number of people who have Pilot-1 or Navigation-1. In other words, if you "lose" your Pilot/Navigator (for whatever reason ... combat, kidnapping, headhunting by a competitor, personal dissatisfaction, etc.) it can potentially take longer to find a replacement. Likewise, if you're wanting to fill that crew role with a PC, it's a lot harder to roll that combination of 4 skill points (reliably) than it is to roll 1 skill point of either flavor (pilot or navigation).
For this reason, I've taken to heart the notion that crew rosters ought to have crew positions that call upon a single skill type for each crew member, rather than trying to "multi-class" the skill requirements. Pilot/Gunner SOUNDS great ... until you need to roll up a PC who has Pilot-2 and Gunnery-2 simultaneously using the chargen who can be given that assignment on the roster.
Consequently, I've moved in the direction of having single crew members who (with sufficient skill) can occupy 2 crew positions with 1 person within a single department. Engineer/Engineer, for example, simply needs 1 person with Engineering-2 skill, making them qualified to maintain 70 tons of drives (LBB2) or 200 tons of drives (LBB5) per person. This is because @ -1 in each of the respective positions, you get a single person who is able to apply Engineering-1 to both crew positions (which is the minimum qualification needed).
- Engineering-2/Engineering-2 (chief) = ((4000*1.2) + (4000*1.2)) * 0.75 = Cr7200 crew salary per 4 weeks
- Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = ((4000*1.1) + (4000*1.1)) * 0.75 = Cr6600 crew salary per 4 weeks
With this interpretation in mind, that means that someone with Steward-1 skill can effectively occupy 2 positions, applying Steward-0 to both positions (which is the minimum requirement in LBB2 crew rules).
- Steward-1/Steward-1 (purser) = ((3000*1.2) + (3000*1.2)) * 0.75 = Cr5400 crew salary per 4 weeks
- Steward-1/Steward-1 = ((3000*1.1) + (3000*1.1)) * 0.75 = Cr4950 crew salary per 4 weeks
And that's before getting into the question of "wearing different hats" for competing priorities during stress situations (such as ship to ship combat). Dropping the helm to go reload the missile turret (in a different part of the ship) feels kinda ... suboptimal. Even from a "workload" perspective, being responsible for piloting AND navigation (concurrently) increases the pilot's workload (by definition), so they need to have higher skill levels (2+2=4) just to reach minimum qualification in both roles out of a single individual. Compare that to two people who have minimum skill levels needed (1+1=2) for the two roles of pilot and navigator. From a recruiting needs standpoint, it's easier to find two people who have SkillA-1 and SkillB-1 ... rather than needing to look for one person who has both SkillA-2 AND SkillB-2 at the same time.
Keeping crew rosters confined to a "1 skill TYPE per crew member" makes recruiting for all of the different positions needed onboard a starship a lot easier to fill (reliably) from an operational standpoint. You can still have requirements for higher skill levels than minimum (such as Medical-4, for example), but it's "easier" to obtain a single skill 4 times in chargen than it is to obtain 2 different skills TWICE EACH during chargen.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program about bridge workstations, already in progress.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Friend did that function.
You know, I hate to ask -- but are "friends" electric? (Youtube -- Gary Numan and Tubeway Army from 1979).
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
A couple points.The way I think of it is in terms of departments (kinda).
Engineering and Gunnery departments get "chiefs" of the department when there's more than one crew member in those departments. I figure that the department chief MAY be on the bridge during "red alert" situations to coordinate with the captain and/or executive officer (which could be the pilot and/or navigator in command). So it's not that they HAVE TO be on the bridge, just that for some craft it might be preferred that they be on the bridge.
Launches and recoveries of subordinate craft and/or zero-g cargo transfers while on orbit can potentially require delicate coordination "between departments" depending on the docking arrangements being used (if any). For some types of craft that might mean that it's better to have those workstations in the same compartment (the bridge), while for others it might be better to keep them separate.
This is something that I've been (re)discovering with my own pondering(s) in starship design. Essentially it comes down to a matter of workload for individual crew members. Just because the RAW says you can mix 'n' match any two crew positions into a single person doesn't necessarily mean that it's wise to do so (even on ACS, where every added crewman on payroll is another stateroom+life support expense). And although it's always possible to "multi-department" crew skills and positions (because the RAW lets you do it without restriction), as soon as you scratch the surface and start thinking about the question of recruiting for those multi-role positions you can start running into some real bottlenecks.
Even something as classical as the Pilot/Navigator position (an OLD favorite) ... that requires Pilot-2/Navigation-2 skill (minimum) in order to be able to perform both roles can be something of a hassle. That's basically 4 skill points in 1 person, instead of 2 skill points in 2 people (Pilot-1 and Navigator-1). Point being that in a setting with "millions of spacers" in it, there's going to be "some" NPCs who have the requisite combination of Pilot-2/Navigation-2 in order to pull double duty, the "pool" of prospective personnel is going to be a LOT smaller than the number of people who have Pilot-1 or Navigation-1. In other words, if you "lose" your Pilot/Navigator (for whatever reason ... combat, kidnapping, headhunting by a competitor, personal dissatisfaction, etc.) it can potentially take longer to find a replacement. Likewise, if you're wanting to fill that crew role with a PC, it's a lot harder to roll that combination of 4 skill points (reliably) than it is to roll 1 skill point of either flavor (pilot or navigation).
For this reason, I've taken to heart the notion that crew rosters ought to have crew positions that call upon a single skill type for each crew member, rather than trying to "multi-class" the skill requirements. Pilot/Gunner SOUNDS great ... until you need to roll up a PC who has Pilot-2 and Gunnery-2 simultaneously using the chargen who can be given that assignment on the roster.
Consequently, I've moved in the direction of having single crew members who (with sufficient skill) can occupy 2 crew positions with 1 person within a single department. Engineer/Engineer, for example, simply needs 1 person with Engineering-2 skill, making them qualified to maintain 70 tons of drives (LBB2) or 200 tons of drives (LBB5) per person. This is because @ -1 in each of the respective positions, you get a single person who is able to apply Engineering-1 to both crew positions (which is the minimum qualification needed).
In other words, a Engineer with skill-2 can "fill +1 more crew position" than someone with skill-1 can, but they're also going to draw more salary than the skill-1 person will.
- Engineering-2/Engineering-2 (chief) = ((4000*1.2) + (4000*1.2)) * 0.75 = Cr7200 crew salary per 4 weeks
- Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = ((4000*1.1) + (4000*1.1)) * 0.75 = Cr6600 crew salary per 4 weeks
With this interpretation in mind, that means that someone with Steward-1 skill can effectively occupy 2 positions, applying Steward-0 to both positions (which is the minimum requirement in LBB2 crew rules).
By keeping the skill requirements for each crew position "in the family" of their respective departments, you avoid needing to cross-match different skills (pilot/navigator, pilot/gunner, steward/medic, etc.) that look good at the naval architect's office when drawing up design specifications and crew requirements, but which can wind up being more of hassle than it's worth if you need to recruit people to join your crew ... since higher skill levels, and COMBINATIONS of DIFFERENT higher skill levels in particular, can potentially be harder to come by with a smaller pool of people with the necessary skill qualifications to choose from.
- Steward-1/Steward-1 (purser) = ((3000*1.2) + (3000*1.2)) * 0.75 = Cr5400 crew salary per 4 weeks
- Steward-1/Steward-1 = ((3000*1.1) + (3000*1.1)) * 0.75 = Cr4950 crew salary per 4 weeks
And that's before getting into the question of "wearing different hats" for competing priorities during stress situations (such as ship to ship combat). Dropping the helm to go reload the missile turret (in a different part of the ship) feels kinda ... suboptimal. Even from a "workload" perspective, being responsible for piloting AND navigation (concurrently) increases the pilot's workload (by definition), so they need to have higher skill levels (2+2=4) just to reach minimum qualification in both roles out of a single individual. Compare that to two people who have minimum skill levels needed (1+1=2) for the two roles of pilot and navigator. From a recruiting needs standpoint, it's easier to find two people who have SkillA-1 and SkillB-1 ... rather than needing to look for one person who has both SkillA-2 AND SkillB-2 at the same time.
Keeping crew rosters confined to a "1 skill TYPE per crew member" makes recruiting for all of the different positions needed onboard a starship a lot easier to fill (reliably) from an operational standpoint. You can still have requirements for higher skill levels than minimum (such as Medical-4, for example), but it's "easier" to obtain a single skill 4 times in chargen than it is to obtain 2 different skills TWICE EACH during chargen.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program about bridge workstations, already in progress.
Skill-1 is certainly easier to come by both in chargen and post career dev, and in civilian ships more reasonable to hire. But we know from LBB5 that the base skill on warships is assumed to be 2. A little bit of edge can loom large when the ship is in trouble.
Second point, in CT I think Electronics and Mechanical skills for ships are overlooked.
Control circuits, sensors, fire control and critical equipment are the domain of the former and mundane items like hatches, life support air/water/sewage and fuel lines all need motors/pumps.
So good idea that have some on the crew with those skills even if they aren’t engineers per se. Larger engineering crews should have specialist sections covering this.
Smaller ships won’t have that luxury, might be an unfortunate drop in skill level when these failures come up.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
If you really hated to ask, you wouldn’t have done it.
for CT: I never used such an approximation. I use 2-5, but it's not a ratio, just floors
One for the Bridge Officer of the Watch, one for Helm, one for Nav. One for comms/sensors if over 1000 Td. one for computer if not a pure merchant. One for the Gunnery Officer if more than 1 battery. A flight controller if more than 2 small craft.
For MT, one per bridge crew, command crew, and electronics crew.
For TNE/T4 whatever the number of consoles installed dictates.
Look, there are only so many hit songs out there about robot prostitutes, ok?
And even fewer opportunties to mention them with a lyric quote and title drop.
(It's pretty subtle about it, though -- perfectly SFW.)
Last edited:
