The Bridge, Ship Size, and Hull Size

[McPerth]

The same 20 Dt bridge on a 199 Dt ship, a 200 Dt ship, and a 201 Dt ship, but very different crews.

There is obviously no rational reason other than the rules† says so...

† The traveller rules, Imperial regs, Union contracts, take your pick...

In any case, the threshold must be set at some point, regarloess having 1 dt more or less makes it not different.

As per crew, in some cases at least (e.g. medic) it's clear is for Imperial regulations, as Alien books tell us quite clearly they don't always follow the same standards...

That's the same as making HG ships 74 kdtons to avoid the DMs for being 75+, while the true difference among them is minimal at best.

 

[Condottiere]

I've just done the current rule set for really small starships exercise, so I'll say the sweetspot probably is two hundred tonnes and just under, for either volume or primary hull, which goes next under the loop.

If it weren't for the hundred tonne minimum a fifty tonne scoutship might have been interesting.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In any case, the threshold must be set at some point, regarloess having 1 dt more or less makes it not different.

Sure, but in this case we don't really need a threshold. Either you need the engineers to polish the drives, or you don't. Since some ships randomly don't require engineers, it seems they are not actually necessary?

As per crew, in some cases at least (e.g. medic) it's clear is for Imperial regulations, as Alien books tell us quite clearly they don't always follow the same standards...

Quite, so not absolutely necessary, just required.

That's the same as making HG ships 74 kdtons to avoid the DMs for being 75+, while the true difference among them is minimal at best.

Here we at least have a physical reason: smaller thing are more difficult to hit.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I think of it more as 20% of the 100 ton ship vs. 10% of the 200 ton ship, same exact engineering plant if it’s Type S vs. Type A. That’s 10 tons of extra bridge doing… something.

It's the same bridge, presumably the minimum practical combination of workstations, sensors, communicators, &c. It's the same for any ship from 100 to 1000 Dt. What makes the 100 Dt ship so special?

Arguably you could say that’s the scout sensors ala CT scout/military sensors, but then you’ve just quantified advanced sensors as being 10 tons 5 MCr.

MCr 5? The very same bridge is MCr 1 in a Free Trader and MCr 0.5 in a Scout.

I say it’s automation. If we look at that 5MCr and compare this value to top end robots, you could have quite a bit of genius operation and engineering bots.

All that automation for 0 Dt and MCr -0.5? That's a brilliant deal, I'll take that for all ships, please!

 

[mike wightman]

Which sort of begs another question, if a bridge for a 100 to 1000 ton ship takes 20t, why is there a cost difference? What is there in the 20t bridge of a 1000t ship that costs MCr9.5 more than the 20t bridge of the 100t ship?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It wasn't "small hulls," it was "hulls with specifically-constrained drive bays".

OK, it's small hulls "with specifically-constrained drive bays". It's only really 100, 200, 400 Dt hulls that are cheap enough to matter.

I mostly see it as LBB2 going out of it's way to punish the Far Trader (and anything but the Free Trader).

It's in the first edition of LBB TWO? I thought the first appearance was in first edition LBB Five.

1977 Book 2 doesn't imply reaction drives. It's explicit but has no game effects or consequences. Page 22.

3. Thrust: Ships maneuver using reaction drives, referred to as M-Drive or ma- neuver drive.

I note this in a subsequent paragraph. In LBB2, a RAW-compliant 100Td ship can have 15Td drives at most, and that's probably what they were thinking about (it's rounding down after dividing by 35). Even in the case of a RAW-compliant 199Td ship with the largest possible drives (J4/4G/Pn=4), a total of 45Td of drives. It's reasonable to guess (yeah, common sense here) they weren't expecting the rule to cover more than that when they wrote it.

Exact same bridge in a Scout and a Free Trader, one needs an Engineer, one doesn't. Give it up, there is no reason other than random arbitrary rule.

No, it would increase the engineering requirement to include "...a knowledgeable chief engineer, a second engineer, and several petty officers" (LBB5'81, p.32). Maybe a very small engineer with multiple personality disorder?

You truncated the quote:

LBB5'80, p32:
Engineering Section: The ship needs one engineering crew member for each 100 tons of drives installed. This should include a knowledgable chief engineer, a second engineer, and several petty officers.

So you maintain that with no tanks the ship requires no Engineers, with some tanks it requires two engineers, and with some more tanks it would require one engineer (possibly with several hats). Same ship, same bridge, same drives somehow magically needs polishing, no polishing, or a lot of polishing, depending on the phase of the moon.

No, there is no absolute need, it's just a regulation about what is usually good to have or something like that. The rest is an argument over the exact wording of an Imperial (or something) regulation we have never seen.

Here's the distinction I make: Some "house rules" are consistent with the underlying formulae or principles of the game, and some are not.

Sure, but we are not agreeing on what the principles of the game are. I follow with the published examples.

 

[Condottiere]

Size of a bridge for a given hull size indicates how much control equipment is required.

Cost per hundred tonnes may be how much wiring up the hull costs.

 

[robject]

Size of a bridge for a given hull size indicates how much control equipment is required.

QFT. This is borne out looking across the rulesets over the years. Bridge size maps, unevenly, to the number of control stations.

 

[kilemall]

It's the same bridge, presumably the minimum practical combination of workstations, sensors, communicators, &c. It's the same for any ship from 100 to 1000 Dt. What makes the 100 Dt ship so special?


MCr 5? The very same bridge is MCr 1 in a Free Trader and MCr 0.5 in a Scout.


All that automation for 0 Dt and MCr -0.5? That's a brilliant deal, I'll take that for all ships, please!

The automated ship would be a similar percentage bridge, 20%. At that cost for 1000 ton 200 ton bridge we’re talking 50 MCr, not a good use of budget not to mention space.

Now I do have something wrong, misremembered the bridge prices. So we don’t have megacredits of robotics funded.

But we can extrapolate some idea of what is going on by noting the 100 ton ship bridge is KCr 500 while the 1000 ton ship bridge, same size, is MCr 5. Also that the small craft bridge is 4 tons minimum at Cr 100000, and a small craft bridge on a 100 ton craft is 20 tons at exactly the same price, KCr 500.

That combination suggests that

• the jump drives don’t matter to bridge tonnage,
• that the even more short handed crewing of a small craft demands high automation at the same level as the Type S,
• that there most be some sort of miniaturization/more capable process going on up to 1000 tons to allow the same bridge space to control more ship, and
• that as the crews get bigger and able to do full shifts that less percentage of the ship must be bridge to compensate through automation.

 

[Grav_Moped]

OK, it's small hulls "with specifically-constrained drive bays". It's only really 100, 200, 400 Dt hulls that are cheap enough to matter.

I mostly see it as LBB2 going out of it's way to punish the Far Trader (and anything but the Free Trader).

It makes the Type S, Type A, and Type M significantly cheaper than they would be otherwise, and causes the Type R to waste cargo space (it's still more cost-effective than J1/1G in a custom hull that recovers the wasted space) while building in an upgrade path to J2/2G performance in the same hull. Some of the larger custom hulls don't actually save money, just reduce build time.

So you maintain that with no tanks the ship requires no Engineers, with some tanks it requires two engineers, and with some more tanks it would require one engineer (possibly with several hats). Same ship, same bridge, same drives somehow magically needs polishing, no polishing, or a lot of polishing, depending on the phase of the moon.

No, there is no absolute need, it's just a regulation about what is usually good to have or something like that. The rest is an argument over the exact wording of an Imperial (or something) regulation we have never seen.

Nope. I'm asserting that when you invoke the HG manning rules, you need to apply all of them.

Essentially, the phrase strongly suggests that the minimum engineering crew size under HG is at least five: "...a knowledgeable chief engineer, a second engineer, and several* petty officers." While this appears to describe the leadership/supervisory personnel only (as with the adjacent Command Section, Gunnery Section, and Flight Section parts of the rules) rather than the entire engineering crew, it can also plausibly be read as the minimum engineering crew required by HG's manning rules.

If so, those rules only start to make sense where the 1:35Td of drives mandated by LBB2 would result in a larger engineering crew (that is, in ships with more than 175Td of drives). At TL9-12, J2/2G in 1KTd reaches that under HG. (J1 might, too -- I was just estimating there.)

(There's a similar issue with gunnery manning for civilian ships in the high-ACS/low-BCS tonnage range.)


More to the point, IMO the crew requirements are what's actually needed, but the smallest ships get a waiver from them for game play reasons. There are presumably in-universe justifications for it, but it's primarily so there can be ships that a lone PC can operate without NPC assistance.

___________________________________________________
*Dictionary.com: "Perhaps the most common interpretation or intended sense of several is around three to five, but this can vary greatly depending on the context."

 

[Grav_Moped]

the jump drives don’t matter to bridge tonnage,

They explicitly do not matter to bridge tonnage. Non-starships have bridges identical to those of starships.

 

[Condottiere]

One assumes required costs and volumes of the jump drive are all inclusive, considering five tonnes, or one percent, overhead, the bridge just sends electronic signals down range.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It makes the Type S, Type A, and Type M significantly cheaper than they would be otherwise, ...
Some of the larger custom hulls don't actually save money, just reduce build time.

So we agree that it's small (100-400 Dt) hulls where it matters?
And that any step outside heterodoxy (standard engineering performance) is heavily disincentivized?

Nope. I'm asserting that when you invoke the HG manning rules, you need to apply all of them.

Essentially, the phrase strongly suggests that the minimum engineering crew size under HG is at least five: "...a knowledgeable chief engineer, a second engineer, and several* petty officers." While this appears to describe the leadership/supervisory personnel only (as with the adjacent Command Section, Gunnery Section, and Flight Section parts of the rules) rather than the entire engineering crew, it can also plausibly be read as the minimum engineering crew required by HG's manning rules.

No, the entire quote is:

Engineering Section: The ship needs one engineering crew member for each 100 tons of drives installed. This should include a knowledgable chief engineer, a second engineer, and several petty officers.

You deliberately deleted the part "this should include". It does not say "in addition".

LBB5'80 says one engineer per 100 Dt drives, with an internal command structure.

More to the point, IMO the crew requirements are what's actually needed, but the smallest ships get a waiver from them for game play reasons. There are presumably in-universe justifications for it, but it's primarily so there can be ships that a lone PC can operate without NPC assistance.

So engineers are not really necessary, since some ships don't need them?


Yes, CT rules are a mess of random arbitrary limits, but generally work in that larger ships require larger crews. I don't think we should read too much into it about the physical world or future society in general.

Even under RAW, we could probably profitably replace the entire crew with robots and make the entire space industry next to unmanned, but where's the fun in that?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The automated ship would be a similar percentage bridge, 20%. At that cost for 1000 ton 200 ton bridge we’re talking 50 MCr, not a good use of budget not to mention space.

But bridges are not 20%, just minimum 20 Dt. That is presumably just the minimum practical set of sensors, communicators, and workstations needed.

Now I do have something wrong, misremembered the bridge prices. So we don’t have megacredits of robotics funded.

OK, no worries.

That combination suggests that

• the jump drives don’t matter to bridge tonnage,
• that the even more short handed crewing of a small craft demands high automation at the same level as the Type S,
• that there most be some sort of miniaturization/more capable process going on up to 1000 tons to allow the same bridge space to control more ship, and
• that as the crews get bigger and able to do full shifts that less percentage of the ship must be bridge to compensate through automation.

Yes, jump drives does explicitly not matter, since non-starships require the same bridge, as Grav-Moped pointed out.

Small craft don't need a bridge at all, it can be replaced with a 1 Dt computer and a 0.5 Dt workstation, and work just as well.

No miniaturisation needed, just a standard minimal package of sensors, commo, and workstations, that is the same for all small ships. All small starships (OK, >200 Dt) use the same basic allotment of bridge crew; Two: Pilot and Navigator. When we need bigger bridge crews over 1000 Dt, we need a bigger bridge.

As ships gets larger, so does bridges, above the minimum level.


You may consider increased automation the reason for the relaxed crew requirements for very small ships, but I can't see any hint of that in the bridge requirements. Wouldn't it be easier to just say that a basic engineering robot lives in bowels of the ship and takes care of the nitty-gritty details?

 

[kilemall]

You may consider increased automation the reason for the relaxed crew requirements for very small ships, but I can't see any hint of that in the bridge requirements. Wouldn't it be easier to just say that a basic engineering robot lives in bowels of the ship and takes care of the nitty-gritty details?

I had not forgotten about the small craft computer only, but it does perform at a lower level without the combo.


The rest of the post is agreed or strongly arguable, but I think this is backwards. The lower crewing requirements is what we should look at, and what’s different about the smaller ship? Higher percentage of bridge.

Another interesting side hole to jump down is the minimum 4 ton bridge for the small craft. We all agree that there is no practical difference between small craft, non-starship and starship bridges.

But here is a lower minimum of what a bridge is. So we can roughly say that 16 tons of our 20 ton minimum bridge is tied to the size, modestly increased crewing and subsystems involved, 4 tons is all that’s needed for the pilot and controlled coordination of the main power/drives.

 

[Silverhawk]

So we agree that it's small (100-400 Dt) hulls where it matters?
And that any step outside heterodoxy (standard engineering performance) is heavily disincentivized?



No, the entire quote is:

You deliberately deleted the part "this should include". It does not say "in addition".

LBB5'80 says one engineer per 100 Dt drives, with an internal command structure.



So engineers are not really necessary, since some ships don't need them?


Yes, CT rules are a mess of random arbitrary limits, but generally work in that larger ships require larger crews. I don't think we should read too much into it about the physical world or future society in general.

Even under RAW, we could probably profitably replace the entire crew with robots and make the entire space industry next to unmanned, but where's the fun in that?

But below 1,000 tons LBB5 '80 specifies using LBB2 crew rules which is the 1 per 35 ton.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But below 1,000 tons LBB5 '80 specifies using LBB2 crew rules which is the 1 per 35 ton.

We are specifically discussing a 100 Dt ship with 55 Dt drives and some drop tanks.

I maintain that it's a 100 Dt ship, requiring no engineers.

Grav-Moped seems to maintain with a total tonnage of 1000 Dt or less it requires two engineers as per LBB2, and with a little bigger tanks, so say 1100 Dt would require engineers as per LBB5, so one engineer, or perhaps five engineers, or something like that.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The rest of the post is agreed or strongly arguable, but I think this is backwards. The lower crewing requirements is what we should look at, and what’s different about the smaller ship? Higher percentage of bridge.

But it's not specified as a percentage, but a fixed tonnage for all ships up to 1000 Dt.

Another interesting side hole to jump down is the minimum 4 ton bridge for the small craft. We all agree that there is no practical difference between small craft, non-starship and starship bridges.

As per LBB2 small craft seems to have worse sensor capability, so presumably a smaller sensor package?

 

[Grav_Moped]

So we agree that it's small (100-400 Dt) hulls where it matters?
And that any step outside heterodoxy (standard engineering performance) is heavily disincentivized?

It's not trying to incentivize homogeneity, it's generally trying to penalize high performance.

Specifically, there's a hidden preferred-progression track in the Standard Hulls: Type A -> Type R -> Type R with Size D drives (J2/2G) -> Type M.
Going off that track -- a Type A2, for example -- involves playing at a higher difficulty level.

No, the entire quote is:

You deliberately deleted the part "this should include". It does not say "in addition".

LBB5'80 says one engineer per 100 Dt drives, with an internal command structure.

It does. It also says those crew positions should be present when using HG manning rules. This implies that if those crew positions aren't called for by the rules, those rules shouldn't be applied. If you don't have a large enough crew to require a command staff, your ship shouldn't be manned according to HG manning rules.

So engineers are not really necessary, since some ships don't need them?

They're needed, but the risk tolerance is higher for smaller ships; less money and fewer lives are at stake. (And the real justification is that they wanted the Type S to be usable by a single PC, but didn't want to state that outright.)

Yes, CT rules are a mess of random arbitrary limits, but generally work in that larger ships require larger crews. I don't think we should read too much into it about the physical world or future society in general.

The thing is, they're not random. They may not make sense in-universe, and some may have turned out to be sub-optimal from a game play perspective, but they were deliberately chosen.

The rules define the universe, and the universe should be internally consistent. If the rules aren't internally consistent, either the rules should be modified or some explanation should be provided.

Even under RAW, we could probably profitably replace the entire crew with robots and make the entire space industry next to unmanned, but where's the fun in that?

Agreed on that! On the other hand, if crews can't be automated because it would spoil the milieu as an RPG setting, having crew positions (or, not having them and being short-handed) really ought to have an effect.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It does. It also says those crew positions should be present when using HG manning rules. This implies that if those crew positions aren't called for by the rules, those rules shouldn't be applied. If you don't have a large enough crew to require a command staff, your ship shouldn't be manned according to HG manning rules.

It very specifically does not say that. It say over 1000 Dt, use LBB5 rules.

Which for this 2000 Dt J-1 LBB5 ship with 95 Dt drives means one engineer:

Spoiler:

MT-B611122-000000-00000-0        MCr 310       2 000 Dton
        TL=12 Crew=17 Cargo=1578 Fuel=210 EP=20 Agility=1

Single Occupancy                                  1 579       388
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             B          2 000       
                                                              
Jump Drive          J                  1    1        50        90
Manoeuvre D         J                  1    1        17        36
Power Plant         J                  1    1        28        72

Cargo                                             1 579       
                                                              
Nominal Cost        MCr 387,53           Sum:     1 579       388
Class Cost          MCr  81,38          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 310,02                                 
                                                              
                                                              
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    10
Passengers            Mid     0          17       Engineers     1
                      Low     0                     Gunners     0
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     6

They're needed, but the risk tolerance is higher for smaller ships; less money and fewer lives are at stake. (And the real justification is that they wanted the Type S to be usable by a single PC, but didn't want to state that outright.)

So they are not really necessary, as some ships don't need them?

The thing is, they're not random. They may not make sense in-universe, and some may have been sub-optimal from a game play perspective, but they were deliberately chosen.

OK, arbitrary limits then.