Starship engineer requirements

[CosmicGamer]

What makes you think that technology in the future will be so terribly reliable?

Personally, from my experience things like
- hard drives that used to crash if you bumped into a computer then hard drives that lasted a few years and now hard drives that have lasted me over a decade. Yes, I really have computers from before Y2K that are still running although the laptop with Windows 98 has not been used since I got the new laptop hmm, was it 2 or 3 years ago...
- TVs with transistor tubes used to break down a lot more often than TVs with solid state transistors. Still need to give these fancy new flat thingys some time to see if they are more reliable.
- stronger plastics, carbon nano tubes and other advances in materials
- just plain old trial and error and learning from experience over time what is more reliable

I also acknowledge that some things are getting made cheaper and are less reliable. Cell phones for one. This is a choice though. They have the know-how to make it more reliable but want to reduce weight, size, costs or whatever.

But beyond any personal experience, we are talking about something far into the future and I see no reason to not go by the rules. For any current day analogies that might be contrary, there are others that support it.

For some insight into my perspective to try and come up with ways to make sense of the rules and not modify them, all but one of the games I've been in (rough estimate 30) have been pick up games. For example the PbP games on this site. I believe it's easier to start up a game using the books people are already familiar with, if they agree with them or not, than have a huge document of house rules that they are unfamiliar with and they need to assimilate and also might not agree with.

The maintenance set-aside in Traveller is a massive joke. I have a maintenance set-aside of 10% of the ships building cost per year.

Sorry. I think I may be misunderstanding. When you say "I have a maintenance set-aside of 10%" are you referring to some real life ship and using that as an example of why Traveller maintenance is way too low?

I have a very low opinion of using repair bots. What you do is your affair.

Certainly, to each their own.

As for cross-training, I mean making sure that every engineer knows the basics of working with the life support system.

Ok, thought you meant using something like a science skill instead of Engineering.

 

[CosmicGamer]

an engineer with skill-2 can get a license that one with skill-0 can't.

Could someone with skill-1 and a high intelligence (education?) pass an examination to certify that he had a skill level of 2?

Could someone with a level 0 skill but a +2 characteristic DM?

Perhaps passing the certification exam should be rolled for like many things in Traveller. This would create instances where someone is a good test taker or just guessed lucky but has low skills getting their certification or who has higher skills but is a bad test taker failing.

EDIT: and if there is no time limit on the test, perhaps a bonus for taking ones time during the test. Similar to taking their time when actually performing Engineering Tasks and getting a +DM.



I wonder how the first engineer Malcolm had on Serenity got his certification.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'd say that the real difficulty with fixing this problem is that if you needed two engineers instead of one, ships should be designed to carry two engineers instead of one.

What do you mean by designed?

Someone, was it you (sorry, too late for me to go looking through the posts - past my bed time) indicated a shortage of stateroom space. I'm not sure what ships are being looked at but while it would cut into revenue for carrying passengers, I don't see a shortage of staterooms.

And for some out of the box crazy, but I'm sure it's done in some movies and books, how about freeze drying a couple engineers in case they are needed. While frozen, perhaps you don't need to give them a normal crew salary.

 

[Timerover51]

Personally, from my experience things like
- hard drives that used to crash if you bumped into a computer then hard drives that lasted a few years and now hard drives that have lasted me over a decade. Yes, I really have computers from before Y2K that are still running although the laptop with Windows 98 has not been used since I got the new laptop hmm, was it 2 or 3 years ago...
- TVs with transistor tubes used to break down a lot more often than TVs with solid state transistors. Still need to give these fancy new flat thingys some time to see if they are more reliable.
- stronger plastics, carbon nano tubes and other advances in materials
- just plain old trial and error and learning from experience over time what is more reliable

I also acknowledge that some things are getting made cheaper and are less reliable. Cell phones for one. This is a choice though. They have the know-how to make it more reliable but want to reduce weight, size, costs or whatever.

You are tossing a ship through the stresses of jump space, your power plant, based on its incredible fuel consumption, is containing a multi-gigaton fusion bomb, and your maneuver drives are continually either accelerating your ship or decelerating it. The ship itself is being exposed to the environment of vacuum and who knows what all atmospheres. You might be using gas giants for refueling and ramming your ship through a dense atmosphere for fuel skimming. Then, unless you are planning on ripping off all of your exterman sensors, you are continually deploying them and then retracting them back into the hull. Your landing gear keeps cycling for landing and take-off. You cold start your small craft fusion power plant and check it out prior to so doing so your ship does not vanish is an expanding fusion explosion ball. Do you seriously expect everything to operate flawlessly all of the time?

But beyond any personal experience, we are talking about something far into the future and I see no reason to not go by the rules. For any current day analogies that might be contrary, there are others that support it.

For some insight into my perspective to try and come up with ways to make sense of the rules and not modify them, all but one of the games I've been in (rough estimate 30) have been pick up games. For example the PbP games on this site. I believe it's easier to start up a game using the books people are already familiar with, if they agree with them or not, than have a huge document of house rules that they are unfamiliar with and they need to assimilate and also might not agree with.

I tear apart the rules of just about every game that I play, RPG or board or miniature war game. Then I make sure that the players know all of the house rules in advance, unless I am running my historical games class, in which case we use the standard rules.

Sorry. I think I may be misunderstanding. When you say "I have a maintenance set-aside of 10%" are you referring to some real life ship and using that as an example of why Traveller maintenance is way too low?

That is basically what an airliner has in terms of maintenance cost in a year. You were using them earlier for examples of crewing. And that 10% might be low for the most current crop. For commercial cargo ships on the Great Lakes, some of which are 1,000 foot self-unloaders, yearly maintenance runs about $1 Million to $1.5 Million a year, with the ships costing around $40 million or so.

 

[Shonner]

I either play with only generic skills (Gun Combat 1, Science 2), or only with specialty skills (Energy Rifle 1, Genetics 2). Depends on the style of the game though. I never mix the skills.

 

[Condottiere]

Probably the reason engineering is seeded with electronic monitoring devices to monitor if the gadgets are functioning normally, and if there's a chance of failure.

For small commercial craft and pleasure boats, regular maintenance would minimize those risks, and as a safety precaution, every time they dock at a starport they might run a diagnostics programme.

That should allow for short voyages with minimal or even non-existent engineer complements.

 

[CosmicGamer]

You are tossing a ship through the stresses of jump space

What stresses. Sorry, but if it's described in the Mongoose rules I missed it.

your power plant, based on its incredible fuel consumption, is containing a multi-gigaton fusion bomb, and your maneuver drives are continually either accelerating your ship or decelerating it.The ship itself is being exposed to the environment of vacuum and who knows what all atmospheres. You might be using gas giants for refueling and ramming your ship through a dense atmosphere for fuel skimming.

All perhaps true. But why does any of this have to make a ship unreliable **1 and where in the rules does it indicate such.

**1 unreliable being a very relative and imprecise term. For one person, a reduction in performance would be unreliable while for enother it would only be the complete failure of the drive. For one person one break a year would be unreliable for another it's one breakdown a decade....

Then, unless you are planning on ripping off all of your exterman sensors, you are continually deploying them and then retracting them back into the hull. Your landing gear keeps cycling for landing and take-off.

I do occasionally hear about landing gear failing on aircraft.Thousands of passenger airplanes take off and land every day. Most probably several times a day. Much more often than the once every two week stress of a jump ship.

Do you seriously expect everything to operate flawlessly all of the time?

No. And I never said it would. I never even suggested that Traveller ships should fly without engineering requirements. Just providing plausible explanations for those looking at the rules and scratching their head looking for some reasoning.

I'm open minded. Start a thread asking for support for a house rule instead of help understanding the rules as written and I'll happily give suggestions to support it and make it work within the rest of the rules. (like if you have more crew requirements maybe we adjust pay based on senior and junior people so that crew costs don't escalate. Staterooms issues are easily resolved with redundant crew working in shifts and hot bunking and so on)

But sorry, I will probably not incorporate it in my rules based games.

I tear apart the rules of just about every game that I play, RPG or board or miniature war game. Then I make sure that the players know all of the house rules in advance, unless I am running my historical games class, in which case we use the standard rules.

So I would think you could be able to see the different sides of it too.

 

[Daidoji Dave]

The skill you're looking for is Mechanic. Fixes anything, but can't build new systems or make dedicated skill rolls like the engineering roll for a Jump. Figure npc engineers have Mechanic equal to their highest Engineering specialty and you're done.

As an aside, I'd be tempted to expand the list of ship's crew wages to include mechanics at 2000 credits. And maybe allow mechanics and engineer's standard wages to come off of monthly maintenance, though I need to think about that. The naval careers return results of more mechanics running around than real engineers, but as it stands there's no hard rules enforcement of this idea until you enter combat and need to repair damage.

Less directly, and this is much more about individual takes on YTU, I don't at all share the assumption you need Engineer 2 just to walk in the door on a free trader. Skill level 1 already encompasses several years of working experience. 2 is professional, yes, but professional at the level of a doctor or lawyer, not just "has a professional certification". 3 is a highly trained and sought after expert in his field, and 4 is good enough to be famous just for doing what you do.

Which I thought all came from the book. But, I also cap skills at 4, which is not actually in the book but looks implied to me by the structure. And I've since seen (other) forum posts about skills at 5 and 6, so my scale may be different than others.

 

[atpollard]

But, I also cap skills at 4, which is not actually in the book but looks implied to me by the structure. And I've since seen (other) forum posts about skills at 5 and 6, so my scale may be different than others.

A scale of 1-6 just fits well with a game system based on rolling 6 sided dice.

 

[Duke Craig]

Important Positive Affirmation

I'm making a pre-gen character that is supposed to become the (sole) engineer aboard the starship the PCs are going to crew, and I've run into a snag.

Looking at the Engineer skill, I note four specialties that I'd prefer my engineering department was compentent to operate, maintain, and repair: Maneuver drive, Jump drive, Life support, and power. A case could be made for adding Electronics to that list, but I'll give that a pass; if a sensor pops, the ship will just have to manage without and get it fixed at the next port of call.

Now, if you have four engineers, each of them could be qualified in one of those areas, and I guess a skill level of 2 would be adequate, so that would be all right. But what happens if your ship has less than 200T of drives and power plants? Does the ship designer really expect that it will be easy to find an engineer with Engineer (M-Drive)-2, Engineer (H-Drive)-2, Engineer (Life Support)-2, and Engineer (Power)-2? Or would he feel the need to calculate with cabins enough for two, three or four engineers? And if he does, indeed, calculate with just one engineer, where are you going to find an engineer with 8 points of engineering skill?

And if the answer is "Oh, an engineering skill of 0 is quite enough to handle anything an engineer will have to handle on a starship", then allow me to express a certain amount of scepticism (and to drop the salary of my engineers to Cr2000 )

I am correct that there is no default from one engineering specialty to another above 0, right? No getting an engineer to Engineering (<specialty>)-4 and then deriving skill-2 for the other specialties, right?

Thanks for posting. Sorry, this post is in Mongoose Traveller, not in IMTU, where I could have a field day with this! Such as Contra-Grav, Damage Control, Fuel Purification...Your gunner probably has Electronics...
Thanks for reading, Enjoy!

 

[rancke]

Less directly, and this is much more about individual takes on YTU, I don't at all share the assumption you need Engineer 2 just to walk in the door on a free trader. Skill level 1 already encompasses several years of working experience. 2 is professional, yes, but professional at the level of a doctor or lawyer, not just "has a professional certification". 3 is a highly trained and sought after expert in his field, and 4 is good enough to be famous just for doing what you do.

I already covered that in my first post, but I'll be happy to elucidate.

There are actually two separate and largely unconnected problems that I see.

Fisrtly, I consider the statement that Skill-2 corresponds to a professional to mean that Skill-2 is what a professional needs to do his job. Not skill-1. Definitely not Skill-0. Skill-1 would be what an assistant professional (someone who works under the supervision of a fully trained professional) would have. Which, incidentally, fits quite well with someone who has several years of working experiance. Skill-0 would be apprentice level.

If someone with Engineer (<any one of the specialties>)-2 can do the job of professional starship engineer, then a skill level of 0 is sufficient to do any of the specialties. But if so, why pay through the nose for an engineer when any half-trained apprentice is good enough to do the job? Contrariwise, if a skill level of 2 is required, then the sum total of engineers aboard a ship need to collectively have all five specialties covered at level-2.

Secondly, it would seem exceedingly odd to me if an interstellar state like the Imperium didn't have some regulations to cover interstellar ships. And one of the first regulations that springs to mind is an analog of the rules about licensed mariners in the 21st Century that I've already linked to. There are people who claim that selling double ocupancy passage to commercial passengers is forbidden by Imperial regulations, but making sure a ship has a competent crew isn't regulated? Sorry, that just doesn't pass my setting crapola detectors.


Hans

 

[Shonner]

Which I thought all came from the book. But, I also cap skills at 4, which is not actually in the book but looks implied to me by the structure. And I've since seen (other) forum posts about skills at 5 and 6, so my scale may be different than others.

The Mongoose Alien Module 5: Solomani book will generate characters with Admin 6. But it is not a common occurrence. 1s and 2s are more the norm for the other skills. Admin gets the most reference in the event tables.

 

[Daidoji Dave]

I already covered that in my first post, but I'll be happy to elucidate.

There are actually two separate and largely unconnected problems that I see.

Fisrtly, I consider the statement that Skill-2 corresponds to a professional to mean that Skill-2 is what a professional needs to do his job. Not skill-1. Definitely not Skill-0. Skill-1 would be what an assistant professional (someone who works under the supervision of a fully trained professional) would have. Which, incidentally, fits quite well with someone who has several years of working experiance. Skill-0 would be apprentice level.

If someone with Engineer (<any one of the specialties>)-2 can do the job of professional starship engineer, then a skill level of 0 is sufficient to do any of the specialties. But if so, why pay through the nose for an engineer when any half-trained apprentice is good enough to do the job? Contrariwise, if a skill level of 2 is required, then the sum total of engineers aboard a ship need to collectively have all five specialties covered at level-2.

Okay. I understand what you're saying better. I just don't get the same thing out of the book.

I'll suggest that the bolded part is something you're reading in to the text, that many people don't. So to the extent you're wondering why the designers let that error slip through, and why the fanbase aren't worked up about it, its because we're not making the same assumption.

If you are making that assumption, then yes, you do need to change some things about your Traveller universe. Starting with ship plans for larger engineering crews.

Which, by the way, is actually an interesting change, having the engineering crew on even a small ship bigger than the bridge or flight crew. More reminiscent of steam ships maybe, or even of the engineering departments in Star Trek. I'd get there by a different path, more mechanics and engineer-1's and 0's working under a Chief Engineer with a mighty skill rank of 2, but I suspect I'm not going to persuade you on that end.

 

[SpaceBadger]

As for Engineer skill in particular, I allow skill-0 to let someone stand watch in the drive room, knowing what gauges/dials/holo-readouts to watch, and when to call someone with more skill to come look at it if something appears wonky.

That's it. Engineer-0 doesn't actually do anything but call someone with higher skill, and maybe hand them a turbo-wrench as needed.

I look at skill-0 as familiarization, and in some skills you just don't want to let somebody with that skill level touch anything important. Demolitions is another that springs to mind; if somebody with Demolitions-0 is handling actual explosives, I want to be standing a long way off while they do it!

 

[rancke]

I'll suggest that the bolded part is something you're reading in to the text, that many people don't.

Well, if many people do not get 'Skill less than 2 = not professional standard' from 'Skill-2 = professional', then I'm unable to follow many people. But you're overlooking the second part of the argument: That if Skill-0 is good enough, who's going to pay to hire people with skill-1 and better?


Hans

 

[Timerover51]

As for Engineer skill in particular, I allow skill-0 to let someone stand watch in the drive room, knowing what gauges/dials/holo-readouts to watch, and when to call someone with more skill to come look at it if something appears wonky.

That's it. Engineer-0 doesn't actually do anything but call someone with higher skill, and maybe hand them a turbo-wrench as needed.

I look at skill-0 as familiarization, and in some skills you just don't want to let somebody with that skill level touch anything important. Demolitions is another that springs to mind; if somebody with Demolitions-0 is handling actual explosives, I want to be standing a long way off while they do it!

Basically, you have what is called in current wet ships a "wiper" or "oiler", someone who is learning the trade of engineer.

I chuck the Traveller manning rules out the window and man the ship the way the current wet ships are manned, with enough crew for three 8-hour watches, and some trainees. It comes out very similar to the way Andre Norton mans the Solar Queen. Crew staterooms are all double-bunked, think college dorm room with bathroom facilities, and the life support costs for the stateroom can handle the increased load.

Scout ships are the exception, but I still go with 4 man crews on those.

 

[Daidoji Dave]

Well, if many people do not get 'Skill less than 2 = not professional standard' from 'Skill-2 = professional', then I'm unable to follow many people. But you're overlooking the second part of the argument: That if Skill-0 is good enough, who's going to pay to hire people with skill-1 and better?


Hans

No, I read it and was unimpressed. A nurse or a paralegal can be "professional" in competence, deportment and responsibility, but still be less skilled than someone with the "professional" certification of a doctor or lawyer. Which is the example the book uses of professional, of a character with Medic 2 being a doctor. So I'm looking at skill 2 as the career equivalent of an MD, not just the minimum required to watch the dials of the drive engine.

Conversely, what does "competent, but inexperienced" (skill 0) mean to you? Not competent at all actually?

And speaking of overlooking arguments, what about Mechanic? Fixes and maintains anything. On the random passenger table, engineers have mechanic equal to their engineering specialty, which is not a bad solution for npcs, which is what you ostensibly posted about originally. What are engineers doing on your ships that they need to be building or modifying new systems in the 9+ day turnaround between ports of call?

Again, I like the end point you're trying for. I like the idea of a larger engineering section more in line with steam ships or Star Trek. I'm just baffled at this point by what you're looking for from the board, and from myself for replying to you.

 

[rancke]

No, I read it and was unimpressed. A nurse or a paralegal can be "professional" in competence, deportment and responsibility, but still be less skilled than someone with the "professional" certification of a doctor or lawyer.

If the medical shows I've watched have it right, nurses are quite often more skilled than the interns that have just graduated from medical school and earned the title 'doctor' (but not yet the right to perform as a doctor unless supervised).

MgT's skill system is very coarse-grained and squeezes all professions into the same few skill levels without regards for the fact that some skills are harder to learn to professional standard than others. I see that as a game artifact, not a setting detail.

Which is the example the book uses of professional, of a character with Medic 2 being a doctor. So I'm looking at skill 2 as the career equivalent of an MD, not just the minimum required to watch the dials of the drive engine.

So am I. The minimum required to watch all the dials of a drive engine (and correct the simplest problems while knowing when to alert someone more skilled if problems arise -- just watching one dial doesn't require any special knowledge) would be Engineer-0. But I don't see that as enough to operate, maintain, and repair a jump drive.

Conversely, what does "competent, but inexperienced" (skill 0) mean to you? Not competent at all actually?

No, it means apprentice level to me. Skill-1 means journeyman level to me.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

I am correct that there is no default from one engineering specialty to another above 0, right? No getting an engineer to Engineering (<specialty>)-4 and then deriving skill-2 for the other specialties, right?
Hans

Hi Hans,

I use Mechanic as the basic skill for heavy engineering tasks (like Jump Drive) and Science(engineering) for things like Electronics, for some reason there isn't such a skill in the rules,

regards

David

 

[McPerth]

In genenral, MgT ships need larger crews than CT/MT ones. This was discussed in this thread incluiding the engineer issue, as well as the increased stewards issue (about 4 skill levels, level 0 counting as one, per each steward, skill level irrelevant, in CT/MT).

EDIT: I understand the stewards issue is of no concern for the Scout, as Hans said in the OP (or so I assumed as he talked about a single crewmember), but, as the ship grows larger, with larger drives and more passengers (let's say a large lineer), it will overcome the engineers issue, as when you need 5 engineers for your ship, you can all 5 areas of engineering correctly covered (with the help of less skilled ones in each field), while you keep needing 1 steward skill level (incluiding 0 levels) per 2 High passengers or 5 middle ones, against 1 steward per 8 HIgh or 20 middle passengers, as in CT/MT. END EDIT