The Bridge, Ship Size, and Hull Size

[Grav_Moped]

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:

And that's not really the sort of ship LBB5 was meant to build (it can, but it's not the combatant vessel those rules were written around.)
Additionally, that ship needs six service crew (3/1KTd since no ship's troops) and also should have a gunnery officer (despite being unarmed)

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

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

Define "really necessary". Required for any operation at all? Perhaps not. Required for safe operation? Yes. It's just that it's "acceptable" for 100Td ships to be less than perfectly safe -- and that for those ships, the additional risk doesn't get quantified in the rules.

OK, arbitrary limits then.

The whole thing is arbitrary! It's the rules for a science-fiction RPG, combined with the semi-compatible rules for a related space combat wargame. It almost can't be anything else!

That said, the arbitrary limits usually have some intent behind them, and that intent can usually be found.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And that's not really the sort of ship LBB5 was meant to build (it can, but it's not the combatant vessel those rules were written around.)

It's for all spacecraft, who hasn't used LBB5 to build a better Scout?

LBB5, p18:
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships.

Additionally, that ship needs six service crew (3/1KTd since no ship's troops) and ...

And it has?

...also should have a gunnery officer (despite being unarmed)

While I have to agree the rule could be interpreted that way, I will immediately smite that with a house-rule: No guns, no gunners.

Define "really necessary". Required for any operation at all? Perhaps not. Required for safe operation? Yes. It's just that it's "acceptable" for 100Td ships to be less than perfectly safe -- and that for those ships, the additional risk doesn't get quantified in the rules.

No, you are trying to fit some explanation on the arbitrary rules. A 199 Dt ship is perfectly safe to operate without an engineer, but a 200 Dt ship will soon break down.

The whole thing is arbitrary! It's the rules for a science-fiction RPG, combined with the semi-compatible rules for a related space combat wargame. It almost can't be anything else!

Agreed.

That said, the arbitrary limits usually have some intent behind them, and that intent can usually be found.

Usually they probably don't have any specific intent. It's just a patch on the general patchwork.

Your guess as to why is as good as any, but still only a guess...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Usually they probably don't have any specific intent. It's just a patch on the general patchwork.

Your guess as to why is as good as any, but still only a guess...

I disagree on this point, especially with Classic.

I do concur that that in many cases, arbitrarily set limits are patches, but disagree because in many cases the patches are sub-optimally applied. In other words, things that they thought were fixing one thing caused unintended problems elsewhere -- or the resulting problems were less severe than what the changes were meant to fix. Rules inconsistencies aren't a problem unless someone notices, and if the edge cases are sufficiently obscure it might take a while to find them.

 

[Straybow]

Yes, and people began noticing the inconsistencies the day after the rules were published. The crew requirements are an immediate issue when a player considers the goal of the character buying that first ship, which is very likely right on that edge case. I'd wager there were pre-publish playtesters who noticed and it just wasn't worth the effort to rewrite back in the days before digital submissions and digital printing.

 

[Condottiere]

Crew size tends to be a bit arbitrary. Like a lot of things.

It tends to get disputed as part of a cost cutting exercise.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It tends to get disputed as part of a cost cutting exercise.

Why ... whatever could you possibly be referring to?



Self-deprecating humor value aside, part of the "challenge" of using the arbitrariness of the crew rules to FULL advantage naturally lies in the sub-200 ton hull form factors ... which are the proverbial "one man scout ship" regime of the design rules (and there is a LOT of fun to be had with that challenge!).

Yes, anything under 200 tons is going to be, by definition, a penny ante operator ... but that's almost ideal for a PC who needs to live by their wits without a large party crew to back them up on whatever their play of the day is. The sub-200 tons regime is where you get the "seat of the pants" flyers who operate on a "small time" scale, rather than bulk freighters that are all owned by megacorps. That "low end" scenario is where a LOT of adventures and Traveller-ing can find a niche, especially if the ship and their owner are living "payout to payout" as they wander around from place to place.

The flipside to that is that sub-200 tons is a SMALL starship. You aren't going to be able to fit but so much capability into such a craft (and the more capable it is, the more expensive it is going to be to own and operate!) ... but then again, you can have a LOT of fun designing ships in the sub-200 ton range.

As evidence for my statement ... LINK.

 

[Condottiere]

The mascot could be a freebie.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Usually they probably don't have any specific intent. It's just a patch on the general patchwork.

Your guess as to why is as good as any, but still only a guess...

The way I look at CT's engineering staff rules is that the 200Td breakpoint is an exemption to allow single-handing the Type S (for RPG, not in-universe, reasons) that has limited collateral effect. The LBB2/HG discontinuity is a result of imposing a rule based on drive tonnage, at an arbitrary cutoff point based on hull tonnage. The latter will go mostly un-noticed if you're building ships for HG's abstracted space battle system, because it doesn't really show up in 1000Td ships with performance suitable for combatant vessels. That said, LBB2 doesn't handle crew size for ships outside of its primary focus very well either.

And from that perspective, a reasonable house rule for bridging the LBB2/HG discontinuity is that the HG 1:100Td formula only applies after the LBB2 1:35Td formula yields a large enough engineering crew to support the suggested officer/NCO management overhead. That is, the management overhead is the reason that the workers can be so efficient that fewer are needed.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable guess, and explains the rules better than the rules themselves do (because the rules don't bother explaining themselves).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The way I look at CT's engineering staff rules is that the 200Td breakpoint is an exemption to allow single-handing the Type S (for RPG, not in-universe, reasons) that has limited collateral effect.

Even easier is to see an arbitrary system that basically says "larger ships needs larger crews".

The lack of crew needed sub-200 Dt sticks out like a sore thumb, though. Either you need Engineering skill, or you don't; either you need Navigation skill, or you don't; etc. That is "collateral effect".

The LBB2/HG discontinuity is a result of imposing a rule based on drive tonnage, at an arbitrary cutoff point based on hull tonnage. The latter will go mostly un-noticed if you're building ships for HG's abstracted space battle system, because it doesn't really show up in 1000Td ships with performance suitable for combatant vessels.

You forget Z-drives... We can build quite an effective SDB at say 1300 Dt with surprisingly small drives, at least at TL-15.

It's not really a problem, because any reduction in engineers is hidden by the large increase in bridge crew, from two to ten over 1000 Dt. Whether we call a few crew members "engineers", "deck hands", or "helmsmen" is not the biggest issue in the world.

And from that perspective, a reasonable house rule for bridging the LBB2/HG discontinuity is that the HG 1:100Td formula only applies after the LBB2 1:35Td formula yields a large enough engineering crew to support the suggested officer/NCO management overhead. That is, the management overhead is the reason that the workers can be so efficient that fewer are needed.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable guess, and explains the rules better than the rules themselves do (because the rules don't bother explaining themselves).

Some might consider that reasonable, some might not.

I believe you are trying to force an explanation on a rather arbitrary system. As explained above I don't see the problem; the crew increases anyway, so the "larger ships needs larger crews" is preserved.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The lack of crew needed sub-200 Dt sticks out like a sore thumb, though. Either you need Engineering skill, or you don't; either you need Navigation skill, or you don't; etc. That is "collateral effect".

It does stick out, and the rules themselves provide no explanation for it. The obvious explanation is that the writers were enabling specific RPG-facilitating results through exceptions to a general rule requiring those crew positions. A general rule that those crew positions are imposed arbitrarily despite not being necessary, seems somewhat less likely.

You forget Z-drives... We can build quite an effective SDB at say 1300 Dt with surprisingly small drives, at least at TL-15.

Has to be TL-15 to get the Z drives (of course). And you'd want to go to the full 2000Td (or maybe 1999 if you want to avoid the next hull size code for some reason) because you've already bought the drives for them. Agility maxes out at 5 though... and depending on the weapons mix, might drop to 4. Compensate with armor, I guess?

I believe you are trying to force an explanation on a rather arbitrary system. As explained above I don't see the problem; the crew increases anyway, so the "larger ships needs larger crews" is preserved.

I believe you're correct; that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

The problem is that the rules are sufficiently granular as to specify the exact required (or at least suggested) crew positions for each rules set, but those rules produce discontinuous results where they overlap.

At the level of an abstracted space combat wargame, crew positions can be fungible. On an RPG level, that may well not be the case.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The obvious explanation is that the writers were enabling specific RPG-facilitating results through exceptions to a general rule requiring those crew positions. A general rule that those crew positions are imposed arbitrarily despite not being necessary, seems somewhat less likely.

The heavy-handed arbitrary crew rules in LBB2 (engineers and medics from 200 Dt, navigator over 200 Dt) leaves little possibility other than red tape.

Any explanation of exactly the nature of jump ships require a navigator for a 201 Dt ship, but not for a 200 Dt ship, risks being very far-fetched.

A1 Kinunir, p19:
The bridge is the control center for the ship, and it is possible to run the ship (for limited periods of time) with only the bridge being manned.

Do we absolutely need a 45-men crew to fly a Kinunir? No.
Do we absolutely need a medic and a roomful of engineering officers? No.

Do we need all those 45 men to run the ship in the long run and fight it effectively? Yes, presumably. At least the IN thinks so.

Has to be TL-15 to get the Z drives (of course).

Has to be a TL-15 civilisation. Any world in the Imperium has access to standard drives and, with a class A starport, knows how to install them.

And you'd want to go to the full 2000Td (or maybe 1999 if you want to avoid the next hull size code for some reason) because you've already bought the drives for them.

An SDB is not a freighter; the rest of the craft costs too, and the cheaper, the greater number the budget can stretch to... Obviously it has to be under 2000 Dt to get size code A and that tasty to-hit penalty.

Agility maxes out at 5 though... and depending on the weapons mix, might drop to 4. Compensate with armor, I guess?

Or use a custom PP. The size will be limited at TL-15.

No excuse for lack of armour on a medium SDB, perhaps use a nigh-invulnerable rock and just a missile bay, no other weapons required.

The problem is that the rules are sufficiently granular as to specify the exact required (or at least suggested) crew positions for each rules set, but those rules produce discontinuous results where they overlap.

At the level of an abstracted space combat wargame, crew positions can be fungible. On an RPG level, that may well not be the case.

Once we have left "You must have a Navigator to jump" and gone to "You might want a navigator, if the ship is large enough", the absolute need is no longer there.

I wouldn't quibble to much over exact crew positions in a live game; if the players said the their particular ship only needed a single gunner, but an extra engineer to keep the automation running (transparently because that is the characters they rolled), I would of course agree.

 

[robject]

[High Guard is] for all spacecraft, who hasn't used LBB5 to build a better Scout?

Me. I haven't used LBB5 to build a better Scout.

 

[robject]

The way I look at CT's engineering staff rules is that the 200Td breakpoint is an exemption to allow single-handing the Type S (for RPG, not in-universe, reasons) that has limited collateral effect.

Specifically the Scout, yes, and the Jump-1 Free Trader as well.

 

[Condottiere]

Control, supervision, and maintenance are three different things.

Maintenance can be delayed, supervision only when the device is turned on, and (active) control, when you want it to do something different.

So in the short run, you may need a lot less personnel, and repent at leisure.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The heavy-handed arbitrary crew rules in LBB2 (engineers and medics from 200 Dt, navigator over 200 Dt) leaves little possibility other than red tape.

Any explanation of exactly the nature of jump ships require a navigator for a 201 Dt ship, but not for a 200 Dt ship, risks being very far-fetched.

Not at all. Sorites Paradox (aka Paradox of the Heap). How few grains of sand make up a "heap of sand"? If you have that many, and remove just one, is it still a heap? Alternatively, is there a size of a collection of sand grains such that adding just one will then make it a "heap"?

Just because you can't see a noticeable difference between one side of a line and the other, doesn't mean you can't draw a line somewhere. Its exact position is arbitrary, but the general location can be reasonably chosen.

Or use a custom PP. The size will be limited at TL-15.

You can't mix LBB2 and LBB5 drives.

Once we have left "You must have a Navigator to jump" and gone to "You might want a navigator, if the ship is large enough", the absolute need is no longer there.

There's a nearly exact analog in the American FAA Part 103 Ultralight category:
"In the United States, ultralights are described as "ultralight vehicles" and not as aircraft. They are not required to be registered, nor is the pilot required to have a pilot's certificate."

This is not because you don't need to know how to fly an aircraft to fly one, it's because that when operated within the limits of 14 CFR Part 103, it's pretty much only the pilot who's at risk.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You can't mix LBB2 and LBB5 drives.

Why not? There's nothing in the rules, and S9 does.

There's a nearly exact analog in the American FAA Part 103 Ultralight category:

Arbitrary regulations, there's still a guy holding the stick.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not at all. Sorites Paradox (aka Paradox of the Heap). How few grains of sand make up a "heap of sand"? If you have that many, and remove just one, is it still a heap? Alternatively, is there a size of a collection of sand grains such that adding just one will then make it a "heap"?

A jump process isn't a heap of sand. I would call that desperately farfetched.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Why not? There's nothing in the rules, and S9 does.

HG describes itself as "...a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships". (Bold added). Mixing drives between LBB2 and HG is not using HG as a system; instead, it's cherry-picking it for individual components.

And why don't the ships in S9 do this consistently? The SDB on p. 25 would save 29Td by using a MD-C instead of a custom one from HG. The Gazelle would free up 23 Td by using an MD-K. They don't.

Arbitrary regulations, there's still a guy holding the stick.

True. But it's an arbitrary regulation that's based on risk tolerance. The guy holding the stick could be a retired fighter pilot who likes flying tiny planes and hates paperwork (Fixed-wing Aircraft-4), or maybe just some teenager whose only previous flying experience is playing video games (Fixed-wing Aircraft-0, or perhaps even totally unskilled). Might even be self-flying with an autopilot these days! Doesn't matter to the FAA, because ultralights are too small and slow to do much damage when flown at low altitude out in the middle of nowhere.*

The 254lb/115kg airframe weight limit is indeed arbitrary. There's a lower weight limit for gliders, and slightly higher with a ballistic recovery parachute, and higher still if the plane has floats. In fact, you could get an Experimental certification (requiring safety testing and periodic inspections) for an aircraft that would otherwise be under Part 103 and then fly it as an ordinary airplane (some additional instrumentation may be necessary) -- but you'd need an actual pilot's license to do so. But that's where they draw the line, because they decided there should be a category of aircraft that was "too small to regulate", and the line had to be drawn somewhere.



----------------------------
*In fairness, I'm not sure what regulatory category the FAA would consider a 254 lb. one-passenger drone airplane to fall into.

 

[Grav_Moped]

A jump process isn't a heap of sand. I would call that desperately farfetched.

Not in the least. The idea is that some ships are small enough that the risk of mishap for them is tolerable, when that same risk would not be acceptable for a larger ship. Setting that cutoff at 101Td or 199Td or 210Td wouldn't change things all that much. It's been decided (by the writers) that there should be such a cutoff. The placement of that cutoff is arbitrary, but the fact that it's arbitrary doesn't mean there cannot be one, or that it doesn't reflect something real in-universe.

And returning to the analogy: One grain of sand isn't a heap. Ten thousand are. If given a shovel and asked to make a heap of sand, it's possible to do so even if neither you, nor the person asking you, know exactly how many grains there are in it when you're done. Likewise, some ships are small enough to not need an engineer, some obviously need one (in a setting where engineers are required personnel).

 

[robject]

HG describes itself as "...a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships". (Bold added). Mixing drives between LBB2 and HG is not using HG as a system; instead, it's cherry-picking it for individual components.

HG is indeed a system, but it's one that shares components with Book 2. HG'79 was clearer on this point, both inside the book itself and the rather casual way elements of HG'79 were ported into Book 2 in JTAS 4 for the Gazelle. But, the assumption wasn't wiped out with the version uptick. In short, it seems to me that it's going too far to say that HG2 and Book 2 are hermetically sealed from one another.

In fact, it seems to me that ship design rules were shockingly flexible to GDW, until warships got traction (call it 1981), then it was convenient to use HG2 because it had everything you needed. It took time to pick Book 2 power plants for your High Guard ship design. We know they didn't playtest their warship designs anyhow.

High Guard 2 brought order to the chaos, but that was due to every publisher pretty much just using HG2 implicitly rather than a fiat saying you couldn't do otherwise. Usually, HG2 was a more effective choice for the purposes of its games, and then the publishers could standardize their own efforts.