Ship operations
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
Sorry for the absence here 
Ok, a point was brought up about rules and regulations regards to watches and the like.
Lets throw a curveball into the mixture. First determine the ready state of your ship based on regulations you propose. Then, the curveball is this:
At any given time, what is the fatigue state of your crew during battlestations when it is first called, and what is the fatigue state of your crew after 4 hours of battle stations?
For example - Aramis was kind enough to post his watch schedule (THANK YOU!). Now, lets see what happens when a battle alert is sounded midway into any given watch...
Ok, a point was brought up about rules and regulations regards to watches and the like.
Lets throw a curveball into the mixture. First determine the ready state of your ship based on regulations you propose. Then, the curveball is this:
At any given time, what is the fatigue state of your crew during battlestations when it is first called, and what is the fatigue state of your crew after 4 hours of battle stations?
For example - Aramis was kind enough to post his watch schedule (THANK YOU!). Now, lets see what happens when a battle alert is sounded midway into any given watch...
Before I forget, I've a reason for posting these questions
The basic reason is this: many people look at deployment of ships like they do a gameboard of "ELECTRONIC BATTLESHIP". If there were to be an effort at trying to put themselves in the shoes of the commanders of said ships, perhaps things would work out differently than just "Ok put ship at point A facing direction C - what more do I need to consider, sheesh!"
Already, due to manpower constraints, operational requirements and the like, this discussion has tentatively suggested that T cruisers shouldn't be operating solo, but in squadrons. Interesting.
The basic reason is this: many people look at deployment of ships like they do a gameboard of "ELECTRONIC BATTLESHIP". If there were to be an effort at trying to put themselves in the shoes of the commanders of said ships, perhaps things would work out differently than just "Ok put ship at point A facing direction C - what more do I need to consider, sheesh!"
Already, due to manpower constraints, operational requirements and the like, this discussion has tentatively suggested that T cruisers shouldn't be operating solo, but in squadrons. Interesting.
I never did that... of course 4 years as a navy cadet will alter one's mind a bit.
Realistically? If a commander is repeatedly keeping his crew at battle stations for four hours, he's going to have raving lunatics right soon.
One other thing: for routine patrols, you are not going to battle stations unless you have reason to suspect hostiles. Otherwise, for a port patrol, you'll be constantly at GQ.
That is why I put gunners on every shift, and maneuver crew on every shift. Orbital maneuvers are routine; therefore Pilot 0 is adequate. (Docking, however, is moderate... and needs pilot 1, IMO)
But the crew rates make no provision for "military scheduling". A modern naval vessel actually has 3 times the crew needed to operate and maintain it for patrol durations, and aside from gunners' mates, twice what's needed for combat. Why? because the operational staffing need is maintained per shift.
This is why the navy can afford to assign people to DCT's and such... their ships are overcrewed. This is also why a lot of the "dockside repairs" are done underway: they've got the surplus manpower to do it the brute force way, botswain's chairs and all...
Realistically? If a commander is repeatedly keeping his crew at battle stations for four hours, he's going to have raving lunatics right soon.
One other thing: for routine patrols, you are not going to battle stations unless you have reason to suspect hostiles. Otherwise, for a port patrol, you'll be constantly at GQ.
That is why I put gunners on every shift, and maneuver crew on every shift. Orbital maneuvers are routine; therefore Pilot 0 is adequate. (Docking, however, is moderate... and needs pilot 1, IMO)
But the crew rates make no provision for "military scheduling". A modern naval vessel actually has 3 times the crew needed to operate and maintain it for patrol durations, and aside from gunners' mates, twice what's needed for combat. Why? because the operational staffing need is maintained per shift.
This is why the navy can afford to assign people to DCT's and such... their ships are overcrewed. This is also why a lot of the "dockside repairs" are done underway: they've got the surplus manpower to do it the brute force way, botswain's chairs and all...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep. I used to design my Traveller ships that way. But then along comes "official" supplements and new rules editions and still no mention of such crewing is made. Why? I have no clue. So if you can't beat them join them. Build your ships with the crewing requirements listed and "presume" that automation makes up for the rest I guess. I had worked out that high computer levels might allow some of that, and it's military ships in Traveller that have the highest computers.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It has been noted that the next generation of real world warships on the drawing boards have much more computer control and much smaller crews as a result - it cuts costs apparently.
Until they go into combat and realise they haven't got enough spare bodies for DCTs...
TNE ships have larger crews due to the lack of integrated computer control IIRC.
Until they go into combat and realise they haven't got enough spare bodies for DCTs...
TNE ships have larger crews due to the lack of integrated computer control IIRC.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Speaking of which (automation of war), have you seen the latest Droolywood summer snoozer previews of "Stealth"
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
AI UCAV develops mind of its own and it's up to the brave heros to stop it?
I think I'll pass on that one... (hope I spelled that right )
I think I'll pass on that one... (hope I spelled that right
)you wouldn't believe some of the things they have in mind for cutting costs.
it's said that war is diplomacy by other means. our present business-major leadership seems to think that war is walmart by other means. victory using temps and rental equipment.
the pla must be open-mouthed in disbelief at what their intelligence assessments say.
The question of AI reliability is always an issue. I suspect the first true AI combat units in mainstream use will have some kind of independent remote-destruct system...
as is, some thoughts, based upon my following of the US Navy
1) the USN, technosavvy as it seems, is the most luddite of the services.
1.1) USN firefighting gear is incremental refinements of WW2 technologies *
1.2) Sound Powered Phones *
1.3) Manual Docking systems (ropes and sailors) *
1.4) Manually steered vessels **
1.5) steam boiler, diesel fueled ***
1.6) hempen ropes **
1.7) Steam Catapults ***
2) USN Admirals embrace upgrade rather than replacement
3) USN personnel are trained to work on TL5-7 suff, as well as the current TL8 stuff... because a lot of TL5-7 stuff is still in service.
4) USN policy is to avoid automation without manual backup.
As a generalization, the Navy is VERY techno-conservative, and often smacks of neoludditism, due to that last.
* It's functional, even under heavy damage.
** these can be replaced with very functional, and now similar cost, systems, but they work well, even though they are possible to replace.
*** replaceable, not not cost effective to do so for extant construction.
Diesel Boilers are, from what I can tell, now the exclusive province of auxiliary vessels. But there are guys still learning how to op and maintain them...
Steam Cats could be replaced with EM cats, providing a safer deck, safer launch, and easier maintenance... but nobody in the USN is trained on EMALC's according to recent TV commentary. So, since you've got all the UHP steam, using it to launch the birds is not a bad deal....
We could build a lot more automation than we do. the guns could be fully automated, with GM's to do maintenance and clear jams. one MFD guy for all weapons. One helm/nav guy, to tell it where to go.
We could even put robotic arms to allow the heavy work the engineers do, so that all the engineers are doing is inspect and direct.
We could put in a high-reliability sonar/radar/lidar system and a high-powered computer to crunch the numbers. Just eliminated a dozen ratings... replace them with 1 guy to perform the maintenance and replace damaged subsystems.
The problem is, more than likely, that we'd see another Division By Zero incident....
The Reagan is only using limited automation, too. Unofficial sources have implied that it's for fear of hacking and holding the crew hostage to their own ship... but a simple failure to check for division by zero brought her to dead in the water.
as is, some thoughts, based upon my following of the US Navy
1) the USN, technosavvy as it seems, is the most luddite of the services.
1.1) USN firefighting gear is incremental refinements of WW2 technologies *
1.2) Sound Powered Phones *
1.3) Manual Docking systems (ropes and sailors) *
1.4) Manually steered vessels **
1.5) steam boiler, diesel fueled ***
1.6) hempen ropes **
1.7) Steam Catapults ***
2) USN Admirals embrace upgrade rather than replacement
3) USN personnel are trained to work on TL5-7 suff, as well as the current TL8 stuff... because a lot of TL5-7 stuff is still in service.
4) USN policy is to avoid automation without manual backup.
As a generalization, the Navy is VERY techno-conservative, and often smacks of neoludditism, due to that last.
* It's functional, even under heavy damage.
** these can be replaced with very functional, and now similar cost, systems, but they work well, even though they are possible to replace.
*** replaceable, not not cost effective to do so for extant construction.
Diesel Boilers are, from what I can tell, now the exclusive province of auxiliary vessels. But there are guys still learning how to op and maintain them...
Steam Cats could be replaced with EM cats, providing a safer deck, safer launch, and easier maintenance... but nobody in the USN is trained on EMALC's according to recent TV commentary. So, since you've got all the UHP steam, using it to launch the birds is not a bad deal....
We could build a lot more automation than we do. the guns could be fully automated, with GM's to do maintenance and clear jams. one MFD guy for all weapons. One helm/nav guy, to tell it where to go.
We could even put robotic arms to allow the heavy work the engineers do, so that all the engineers are doing is inspect and direct.
We could put in a high-reliability sonar/radar/lidar system and a high-powered computer to crunch the numbers. Just eliminated a dozen ratings... replace them with 1 guy to perform the maintenance and replace damaged subsystems.
The problem is, more than likely, that we'd see another Division By Zero incident....
The Reagan is only using limited automation, too. Unofficial sources have implied that it's for fear of hacking and holding the crew hostage to their own ship... but a simple failure to check for division by zero brought her to dead in the water.
I suspect however, even with the full automation concept that perhaps some in the Navy are looking forward to - you still run into operational constraints. Where you can use one man to do the work during a shift, if you want three shift's worth of manning - you need to have three times the ship's manning loads. Like Dan Burns, I too like to design my war ships using an enhanced crew list. The way GURPS FAR TRADER has it, you can use software to automate watch keeping on the bridge - but that rules and regulations require that one body be present on the bridge at all times. A civilian ship can get away with being short handed, but not for long.
I noted however, that the discussion drifted away from the question. If using Aramis' shift schedule, how many people are considered "fatigued" at the start of the battle, and how bad would a ship's personnel be after say, four hours of fighting?
While no modern navy has ever been involved in a four hour battle, imagine circumstances where such a battle might be enjoined in a Traveller Universe. First thought that comes to my mind is a stern chase. If the speeds between the running ship and the pursuing ship are reasonably close, the fleeing ship can play TWO games in one. The first is to flee and force pursuit to either give up the pursuit or continue it. If the pursuer continues the pursuit, the fleeing ship's captain can put his crew in a limited stand down state. Why? Because like the wet navy of yore - he has the advantage of wind if you will. It is he who decides when he will stop fleeing and engage the other captain. If the other captain begins to step down his crew, and sees the enemy ship wheel about, he has to call his crew back to battle stations. Granted, this can't be done often - nor can it be done when the pursuing ship is nearly at the point of bringing the pursued ship to heel. But it is one way for a crew to be kept on duty for an extended period of time. Add into the mix, the possibility of a jump to flee a pursuing ship, and you may find that pursuit of a ship is done more for form than for the belief that there will be a battle at the end of the run.
But back to the examination of the situation. A single turn's worth of combat is 20 minutes. Three turn's worth of combat is one hour. What would you guys presume is going to happen to our T class cruiser after it has been in battle for an hour assuming the duty roster Aramis posted, or even a duty roster you yourselves would like to post?
I noted however, that the discussion drifted away from the question. If using Aramis' shift schedule, how many people are considered "fatigued" at the start of the battle, and how bad would a ship's personnel be after say, four hours of fighting?
While no modern navy has ever been involved in a four hour battle, imagine circumstances where such a battle might be enjoined in a Traveller Universe. First thought that comes to my mind is a stern chase. If the speeds between the running ship and the pursuing ship are reasonably close, the fleeing ship can play TWO games in one. The first is to flee and force pursuit to either give up the pursuit or continue it. If the pursuer continues the pursuit, the fleeing ship's captain can put his crew in a limited stand down state. Why? Because like the wet navy of yore - he has the advantage of wind if you will. It is he who decides when he will stop fleeing and engage the other captain. If the other captain begins to step down his crew, and sees the enemy ship wheel about, he has to call his crew back to battle stations. Granted, this can't be done often - nor can it be done when the pursuing ship is nearly at the point of bringing the pursued ship to heel. But it is one way for a crew to be kept on duty for an extended period of time. Add into the mix, the possibility of a jump to flee a pursuing ship, and you may find that pursuit of a ship is done more for form than for the belief that there will be a battle at the end of the run.
But back to the examination of the situation. A single turn's worth of combat is 20 minutes. Three turn's worth of combat is one hour. What would you guys presume is going to happen to our T class cruiser after it has been in battle for an hour assuming the duty roster Aramis posted, or even a duty roster you yourselves would like to post?
Under MT, you get a 1 point penalty (tho it forgets to say to what) at End hours active, and another one point every 2 hours.
4 hours sleep eliminates penalties accrued, but further activity accrues a 1 pointer every two hours.
8 hours sleep eliminate penalty and resets time before penalty to End.
So under MT, it's quite possible to have a crew that can not only handle 15 hour days, can handle 15 hour days without penalty. Not likely, but possible.
Realistically, most crews will be in the -2 range. If one interprets the unspecified penalty as "To all actions and Attributes", it's going to be fairly mild.
My house rule was different, and I'll put it to my site later:
End hours til 1 point to everything, End/3 hours per additional point of penalty, Two hours sleep per point recovered.
4 hours sleep eliminates penalties accrued, but further activity accrues a 1 pointer every two hours.
8 hours sleep eliminate penalty and resets time before penalty to End.
So under MT, it's quite possible to have a crew that can not only handle 15 hour days, can handle 15 hour days without penalty. Not likely, but possible.
Realistically, most crews will be in the -2 range. If one interprets the unspecified penalty as "To all actions and Attributes", it's going to be fairly mild.
My house rule was different, and I'll put it to my site later:
End hours til 1 point to everything, End/3 hours per additional point of penalty, Two hours sleep per point recovered.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
OK, since we are discussing this, does anybody have the rules handy for CT (LBB2 and HG, ideally) crew requirements? I am on travel, don't have my book handy, and want to finish a ship design tonight.
TY
TY
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
CT Book 2 Crew Requirements:
Pilot-1 (always)
Navigator-1 (only if ship is 201+ tons)
Engineer-1 (only if ship is 201+ tons and then 1 per 35tons of drives)
Steward-0 (only for High Passengers carried and then 1 per 8 High Passengers)
Medic-1 (only if ship is 200+ tons and then 1 per 120 passengers)
Gunnery-1 (only if armed and then 1 per turret to be used in each combat turn)
For ships 1000+ tons add 2 Command Officers and 3 Administrative Officers and insure a minimum total crew count of 10 crew per 1000 tons of ship.
Crew may routinely fill two positions at once but skill level is one less and must still meet minimums above. Crew may only fill more than two positions in an emergency
Pilot-1 (always)
Navigator-1 (only if ship is 201+ tons)
Engineer-1 (only if ship is 201+ tons and then 1 per 35tons of drives)
Steward-0 (only for High Passengers carried and then 1 per 8 High Passengers)
Medic-1 (only if ship is 200+ tons and then 1 per 120 passengers)
Gunnery-1 (only if armed and then 1 per turret to be used in each combat turn)
For ships 1000+ tons add 2 Command Officers and 3 Administrative Officers and insure a minimum total crew count of 10 crew per 1000 tons of ship.
Crew may routinely fill two positions at once but skill level is one less and must still meet minimums above. Crew may only fill more than two positions in an emergency
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Thanks, far-trader! I should be able to finish at least the LBB2 version tonight.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
HG Book 5 Crew Requirements:
Note: By the book pretty much but in an easier presentation imo.
Note: I have also included the Medical Section from 1st Ed HG which was not in 2nd Ed for some reason.
For ships 1000 tons and smaller use the Book 2 rules above.
For ships 1001+ tons:
Command Section: 2 Commanding Officers, 2 Electronics Officers, 2 Navigation Officers, and 4 Administrative Officers
For ships 20,000+ tons add to insure a minimum of 5 personnel per 10,000 tons.
Engineering Section: 3 Engineering Officers per 1000 tons of drives, 7 Enlisted Engineers per 1000 tons of drives.
Gunnery Section: 1 Chief Gunnery Officer
plus Spinal Mount: 1 Gunnery Officer, 1 Enlisted Gunner per 100 tons of weapon.
plus Bay Weapons: 1 Gunnery Officer per type, 2 Enlisted Gunners per bay.
plus Turret Batteries: 1 Gunnery Officer per type, 1 Enlisted Gunner per battery.
plus Defensive Screens: 1 Gunnery Officer per type, 4 Enlisted Gunners per type.
Flight Secion: 1 Flight Control Officer, 1 Enlisted Engineer per craft.
plus Craft Crew: As required for the craft.
plus Launch Crew: 10 Enlisted Mechanics per launch tube.
plus Vehicle Subsection: 1 Enlisted Mechanic per three vehicles.
plus Vehicle Crew: As required for the vehicle.
Troop Section: Optional. Typically 3 Soldiers per 1000 tons of ship to 3 Soldiers per 100 tons of ship.
Services Section: 3 Enlisted personnel per 1000 tons of ship.
Frozen Watch Section: Optional. If sufficient standard lowberths are installed and filled the ship has a Frozen Watch for ready replacement of casualties. The requirement is 50% of the total personnel.
Medical Section: 2 Medical Officers per 720 personnel (including Frozen Watch personnel), 1 Enlisted Medic per 720 personnel (including Frozen Watch personnel).
Note: By the book pretty much but in an easier presentation imo.
Note: I have also included the Medical Section from 1st Ed HG which was not in 2nd Ed for some reason.
For ships 1000 tons and smaller use the Book 2 rules above.
For ships 1001+ tons:
Command Section: 2 Commanding Officers, 2 Electronics Officers, 2 Navigation Officers, and 4 Administrative Officers
For ships 20,000+ tons add to insure a minimum of 5 personnel per 10,000 tons.
Engineering Section: 3 Engineering Officers per 1000 tons of drives, 7 Enlisted Engineers per 1000 tons of drives.
Gunnery Section: 1 Chief Gunnery Officer
plus Spinal Mount: 1 Gunnery Officer, 1 Enlisted Gunner per 100 tons of weapon.
plus Bay Weapons: 1 Gunnery Officer per type, 2 Enlisted Gunners per bay.
plus Turret Batteries: 1 Gunnery Officer per type, 1 Enlisted Gunner per battery.
plus Defensive Screens: 1 Gunnery Officer per type, 4 Enlisted Gunners per type.
Flight Secion: 1 Flight Control Officer, 1 Enlisted Engineer per craft.
plus Craft Crew: As required for the craft.
plus Launch Crew: 10 Enlisted Mechanics per launch tube.
plus Vehicle Subsection: 1 Enlisted Mechanic per three vehicles.
plus Vehicle Crew: As required for the vehicle.
Troop Section: Optional. Typically 3 Soldiers per 1000 tons of ship to 3 Soldiers per 100 tons of ship.
Services Section: 3 Enlisted personnel per 1000 tons of ship.
Frozen Watch Section: Optional. If sufficient standard lowberths are installed and filled the ship has a Frozen Watch for ready replacement of casualties. The requirement is 50% of the total personnel.
Medical Section: 2 Medical Officers per 720 personnel (including Frozen Watch personnel), 1 Enlisted Medic per 720 personnel (including Frozen Watch personnel).
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
OK. Right at 1000 dTons, but thanks for typing it out anyway. (I will be able to search for this bit later, if I need it again.)
(I'm going to have to carry my FBBs when I travel, I guess....)
(I'm going to have to carry my FBBs when I travel, I guess....)
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
No biggie Fritz88, it was all handy. Safe Travelling
Hal: In MT, typical task mods for ship crews assume skill 2 att 7, DM+3
That two point penalty could be taken to mean:
</font>
That two point penalty could be taken to mean:
</font>
- -2 to the dierolls or total asset.</font>
- -2 to skill and stat</font>
- -2 all stats</font>
- -2 to the stat alone</font>
