The Cost of Comfort

[aramis]

Book 5 High Guard does state:



That being said, I've hardly ever seen a 2 ton stateroom in any deckplan. Almost all are 3 tons.

Try doing the Type S in 3-D - they're two Tons, despite the number of square meters of floor.

The Type R is less than full height, as well - look at the the illos in CT:TTA 131 the center are 4 squares, but the edge (which are not full height) are (Starboard) 4.5 or 5 (port) squares...

The Xboat Tender has a bunch of 4 square (2 Td) cabins for its staterooms.

The Type S is 2m decks as drawn - except possibly in the engineering space. Whole threads about it. Given 2m decks, those are 2Td rooms despite 6 squaares.

The Type R in S7 has curved tops but is about 2.5m ceilings. So, yeah, oversized for the center ones. The outer ones, however, are under 2.5Td of cabin.

The Type A2 has an issue - it was drawn (apparently) with 1m grids, rather than 1.5, and then redrafted.

The Seeker, due to the same hull shape issue, has about 1.66 Td cabins of 4 squares.

The Gazelle has sloped sides; some of the affected rooms are 4 squares, and some 6 squares. None is more than 2.5Td in room.

The SDB has 6 squares, presumably 3 Td - but the commons are small.

That covers Supp 7.

The AHL has 6 square, 3Td cabins - but those are double occupancy.

The Leaping Snowcat (Adv 10) has about 2.5 to 2.75 Td due to the arched hull.

The Leviathan has few single-man rooms; most are double, and some are up to 4 man... and are 2 or 3 squares per man, as a rule, with 6 squares for officers.

The Kinunir has everything from open bays to suites...

 

[WistfulD]

My take on it, perhaps reinforced by the two extremes you pick, is that if you are the ship owner, you get the freedom to choose. If you own the ship, feel free to knock out a wall and create a double stateroom --- at the cost of losing paying passenger space at 10KCr per jump or 20KCr a month. A prudent owner might choose to do this to accommodate his/her family or perhaps because the ship is paid for and there is no longer a need to service a mortgage.
...
To work in the space industry, you have to accept certain conditions. If those conditions are not palatable, you stay planetside, buy the McMansion with the sweeping driveway and lap pool, and earn enough that you can travel in double stateroom comfort when-ever you want without having to buy and operate the ship. (Unless you can afford both the McMansion and the the Yacht of course...)

I'd say that your interpretation doubles down on the dichotomy of super-industrial or pure decadence. Be a man and live with the cramped quarters or stay at the bottom of a gravity well in your palatial estate with the rest of the snobs, you ingrate. You should be thankful you get artificial gravity. Why in my day,... etc. etc.

To be sure, those who live and work in costly mass/volume situations like naval vessels or spaceships must sacrifice comfort for function, but in the real world, there are middle grounds between the minimum comfort not to impare performance and luxury vehicles. Cold War era US Tanks did have significantly more driver space than their Soviet counterparts (which often required their smaller soldiers to be on tank teams, if my annecdotal history is correct). Long-haul 18-wheeler trucks do have sleeper cabs, instead of the driver keeping a blanket and pillow and sleeping in the passenger seat. Modern naval vessels do have more space per sailr than their WWII or Civil War era counterparts. That means that some people in highly professional, non-luxury positions do make decisions based on comfort. I want to map that to my game.

Double cabins seems like a pretty ingranular approach. Maybe if the crew wants more comfort, they increase the total volume (and cost) of statesroomspace by 10-20%. For a 10-man crew, for instance, 10% might net them a seperate entertainment room that with collapsable fixtures could be anything from a small theater to a billiard hall to a virtual bowling alley/golf course. 20% might net them that and also a separate excercise room, with space for 3-4 people to work out concurrently.

As to the deck plan issue, it seems clear to me that the deck plans almost always use artistic license. If they can't put the ship-build listed space for fuel or bridge space, can we really expect the number of squares dedicated to a statesroom to be informative?

 

[Matt123]

Cold War era US Tanks did have significantly more driver space than their Soviet counterparts (which often required their smaller soldiers to be on tank teams, if my annecdotal history is correct). Long-haul 18-wheeler trucks do have sleeper cabs, instead of the driver keeping a blanket and pillow and sleeping in the passenger seat. Modern naval vessels do have more space per sailr than their WWII or Civil War era counterparts. That means that some people in highly professional, non-luxury positions do make decisions based on comfort.

Your facts are correct, but you are drawing erroneous conclusions. The US and other western powers wanted tank crews to be combat worthy for longer in their equipment. Soviet tank designs valued crew endurance far less. This wasn't about crew comfort, although that was a side effect, it was about bang for buck for the Army. Long haul trucks have sleeper cabs (far smaller than ship staterooms) to allow truck crews to travel further from home without the charges of motel rooms. In Australia (and I am picking the US as well) long haul truck firms can double crew their long haul trucks, by hot bunking. This keeps the equipment running 24/7 (or close to it depending on compulsory rest laws in the state). So again the reason is economic, the crew perk is a side benefit. I cannot speak to modern naval vessels, but I will make the observation that mutinies are far less common these days and I'm pretty confident that underneath the comfort provided for crew are other sound economic or mission critical reasons for naval architects and ship owners to be so nice.

Double cabins seems like a pretty ingranular approach.

I agree and cultural differences and expectations may make a difference. Keep in mind the rules were written within the US 1980's culture and may reflect inherent expectations. Other cultures are far less interested in what might loosely be called 'human factors' (for example the Russian tank crew example). Fast forward 35 years and perhaps expectations (not unreasonably) have changed in the US.

The problem then becomes how do you compete as a spacefarer in the job market, when your peers from the next rock over are far more tolerant of cramped living conditions. And while Captains have no problem finding good reliable crew, that accept the current standard of accomodation, why would they sacrifice income potential.

But, and this is a big BUT. The Imperium is huge. While the OTU may describe one reality, others will exist as well. Sectors where the cultural norms are different, which then impact economically on ship design decisions. And I am talking within humanity, not just the K'kree.

 

[Timerover51]

I cannot speak to modern naval vessels, but I will make the observation that mutinies are far less common these days and I'm pretty confident that underneath the comfort provided for crew are other sound economic or mission critical reasons for naval architects and ship owners to be so nice.

The crew accommodations are strictly for crew comfort, and in fact, do affect adversely the combat potential of the ship. See Norm Freidmann's US warship design series. Basically, it is to make US sailors sufficiently comfortable that they will volunteer and re-enlist.

The problem then becomes how do you compete as a spacefarer in the job market, when your peers from the next rock over are far more tolerant of cramped living conditions. And while Captains have no problem finding good reliable crew, that accept the current standard of accomodation, why would they sacrifice income potential.

But, and this is a big BUT. The Imperium is huge. While the OTU may describe one reality, others will exist as well. Sectors where the cultural norms are different, which then impact economically on ship design decisions. And I am talking within humanity, not just the K'kree.

That is basically the reason for the US Jones Act covering shipping between two US ports, requiring American-flagged and manned vessels. The Coast Guard mandates the minimum working conditions and crewing requirements, which are considerably more costly than many foreign-flagged vessels. There are also the requirements for 5-year inspections and meeting environmental standards. Much of this is ignored by foreign-flagged shipping, resulting in considerably less cost to them. Their crews are also paid less, in some cases considerably less, if they are, in fact, paid.

Overall, this does make shipping on a US-flagged vessel more expensive than shipping on a foreign-flagged ship. Remember, the US uses shipping to get material to Hawaii and Alaska, especially the Alaska Panhandle, along with intra-coastal shipping and river traffic.

The intra-coastal shipping and river traffic would be comparable to in-system traffic in Traveller.

Edit Note: Matt123 is correct on the reasoning for sleeper cabs on long-haul trucks for the US. It has zero to do with crew comfort, but is totally aimed at costs. The reason you see so many trucks parked at the very large truck stops is the driver is asleep. That is also the reason for most large truck stops having showers for the drivers, along with separate areas for them.

 

[Travellerspud]

if you consider GURPS Traveller sources, they have a 30 dTon module that can sleep up to 80 (.375 dTon per person)

I consider this a "bottom limit" (the equivalent of "steerage" or WWII troop ships)

if there was a morale system, or crew efficiency rating, these could be affected if insufficient space were provided...

say "steerage" is a -2, double that ("3rd class") is a -1, double that ("2nd class" or middle passage) is 0, double that is 1st class or high passage for +1, and double that is noble class for +2

steerage class .5 dton -2
3rd class 1 dton -1
2nd class 2 dton 0
1st class 4 dton +1
noble class 8 dton +2

or something like that....

 

[Timerover51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by WistfulD View Post
Cold War era US Tanks did have significantly more driver space than their Soviet counterparts (which often required their smaller soldiers to be on tank teams, if my annecdotal history is correct). Long-haul 18-wheeler trucks do have sleeper cabs, instead of the driver keeping a blanket and pillow and sleeping in the passenger seat. Modern naval vessels do have more space per sailr than their WWII or Civil War era counterparts. That means that some people in highly professional, non-luxury positions do make decisions based on comfort.

Your facts are correct, but you are drawing erroneous conclusions. The US and other western powers wanted tank crews to be combat worthy for longer in their equipment. Soviet tank designs valued crew endurance far less.

The Soviets had two priorities in mind when building tanks. One is that the assumed life expectancy in combat was 25 hours, so large numbers would be required, so the less material used the better. They also stayed with their 600 horsepower converted aircraft Diesel for a long while, which also limited the weight of the tanks. Finish on the Diesels was not regarded as that great, metal shavings being commonly found in the oil when it was changed. The Czechs replaced the Soviet engines with on of their own build, with much better finish and machining. This significantly extended the life of the engine.

Second was hull silhouette. The Soviets wanted the lowest possible silhouette, which means less comfortable tanks, and also ones with less gun depression for use in hull-down positions. The Soviets tanks had a maximum gun depression of 5 degrees, while the US and British tanks had a maximum depression of 10 degrees. The Israelis determined that in many hull-down situations, the US and British tanks were actually less exposed than the Soviet ones. The Israelis do have some small experience in combat with Soviet tanks.

 

[Matt123]

I consider this a "bottom limit" (the equivalent of "steerage" or WWII troop ships)

if there was a morale system, or crew efficiency rating, these could be affected if insufficient space were provided...

Yeah, I've thought about that in the past. I think its a great idea. In HG the expectation is that skills average at level 2 across the fleet. I have considered in the past that the way you house your crew reflects your expectations. Bunk rooms may be sufficient for press-ganged privateers or compulsory service crew at lower skill levels (1 or 0?) while better accommodation may be required if your crew are largely highly highly educated, say averaging skill-3 across the fleet. Touching on Timeover's comments on Navy personal, you cannot reach these skill levels if your highly educated crew keep leaving for dirt-side jobs, offering better life-styles.

 

[WistfulD]

Your facts are correct, but you are drawing erroneous conclusions. The US and other western powers wanted tank crews to be combat worthy for longer in their equipment. Soviet tank designs valued crew endurance far less. This wasn't about crew comfort, although that was a side effect, it was about bang for buck for the Army. Long haul trucks have sleeper cabs (far smaller than ship staterooms) to allow truck crews to travel further from home without the charges of motel rooms. In Australia (and I am picking the US as well) long haul truck firms can double crew their long haul trucks, by hot bunking. This keeps the equipment running 24/7 (or close to it depending on compulsory rest laws in the state). So again the reason is economic, the crew perk is a side benefit. I cannot speak to modern naval vessels, but I will make the observation that mutinies are far less common these days and I'm pretty confident that underneath the comfort provided for crew are other sound economic or mission critical reasons for naval architects and ship owners to be so nice.

Alright, granted. Those each have a functional benefit. Those are, of course, vessels where large companies or the military make the decisions. LEt's find an example closer to Traveller, in particular the Free Trader model. That means small, independent contractors and employee owned vessels. The closest I can think of is the fishing industry, and there only the part of it where small boats and small crews make sense (and might have an influence on the design of the ships of that size). The problem with that one is that the crew compartment is a relatively small contributing factor to the volume of those ships (or to be more accurate, one crew member can man responsibility for a large tonnage of ship, given its industrial purpose). Of course I say that given that the crew tend to have bunk rooms, not individual statesrooms.

I seem to be getting an amazing amount of pushback on the very concept that professional people might devote extra space towards comfortable working situation once they have the financial means to do so. Remember that, although they do make port call, much of these crew basically live on these vessels year round for their entire tour of duty. If this is a character who starts out doing career terms as merchant, then musters out to become a PC, and then tools around on a free trader or something, that means that they are spending their entire lives, from 18 until death or retirement on these vessels. I think once they are on a ship that they own, and have made some money, they might add some space to the crew section for that living room or a full bath or full size kitchen.

The problem then becomes how do you compete as a spacefarer in the job market, when your peers from the next rock over are far more tolerant of cramped living conditions. And while Captains have no problem finding good reliable crew, that accept the current standard of accomodation, why would they sacrifice income potential.

The existence of any worker comfort, safety, or ability to negotiate for anything above subsistence wages has historically been in continuous flux as relative power between workers and employers, and pressures from other people willing to undercut you (globalization in the real world right now, whatever the situation is in UTU) changes. That doesn't change the fact that the history of the world hasn't completely been a race to the bottom.

But, and this is a big BUT. The Imperium is huge. While the OTU may describe one reality, others will exist as well. Sectors where the cultural norms are different, which then impact economically on ship design decisions. And I am talking within humanity, not just the K'kree.

The cultural norm of the TU, as written, suggests something close to an individual or split statesroom per crew member. That's better than fishing vessels. That, to me says that there is some level of economic weight that potential employees have over employers that creates the current social norms. Add in the employer also living and working on the ship, and I'm thinking maybe some decisions based on comfort are at the least not outside the realm of conjecture.

And input on how to draw that up was the original point of this thread! Anyone else have any opinions on doing that? Add a set %age to crew space? Set cost?

 

[McPerth]

if you consider GURPS Traveller sources, they have a 30 dTon module that can sleep up to 80 (.375 dTon per person).

Remeber that, unlike WWII (or any wet navy, for what's worth) ships, in spaceships you must also take into account some life support for amy passenger you carry, even for steerage ones, even if only air and waste removal.

In MT:HT One Small Steep there existed the half bunk, that needed a volume of 6 kl (0.44 dton), but the life support volume was there counted aside from accomodations, and it was purely volume (not people) dependent...

 

[Selandia]

T5 p 327 describe incentives to improve crew/passengers/control space
premium price for passage dm
crew sanity roll dm
ship's mishap daily roll dm given control space and bridge

I like to play Traveller starships much in the spirit of early XX century liner. T5provide explicit options that allows to recreate almost any trade patern of that time, including true steerage class, plus Cryo (low) passage.

When playing CT, I just had to take for granted that 4t stateroom was the basic "Lego" buildingblock of ship's accomodation as a standard established by centuries of trade across thousands of worlds at various TL. Quizz: how long will the TEU standard will remain in use for container transport? Barrel for oil trade?

have fun

Selandia

 

[Matt123]

...snip...

That doesn't change the fact that the history of the world hasn't completely been a race to the bottom.

It is definitely not a race to the bottom. It is more a case of other less fortunate citizens from other cultures stepping one rung up.

While I don't really subscribe to your premise, I can certainly come up with some ideas.

For justification I would adopt some of the ideas already mentioned. Assume one or more of the following; a strong Spacefarers union, standards imposed by a ships port of registration, legislation imposed by major ports on your chosen trade route, cultural standards within centuries old shipping firms, efficiency gains according to research that may not be widely accepted, safety regulations that require safe operations when overcrowded. Market driven reasons might include cultural expectations at important ports strong enough to lead to boycotting of unacceptable services.

What might be the trade off? I think in order to justify the inherent cost of improved living accommodation, you might step away from small traders of ~200 ton. This might also reinforce the idea of career paths from "crappy" little traders to jobs with bigger firms --- with more resources and providing better employment conditions out of a desire to have high quality crews and low staff churn.

For example the Al Moria sector wide shipping line has a fleet of 55 3000 ton World class merchant liners, moving 1200 ton of cargo and 30 passengers each (ref: Spinward Marches Campaign, p30-31). Each ship has a crew of ~25 (by my rough calculation), occupying full staterooms at 100 ton in total. Assuming only half of that is private accommodation, that makes 50 ton. To double the personal space means losing (for example) 50 ton or ~4% of the vessels cargo capacity. Perhaps very do-able economically in exchange for stable, experienced crew which may lead to lower maintenance costs, lower recruitment costs and higher customer satisfaction.

But, I might expect a demand for a corresponding increase in the size of passenger accommodation, to at least match crew accommodation (for the same standard price?).

You might want to look up that example also for an alternate crew compensation system as well.

The figures are not quite so nice for the 600 ton subsidized liner with 210 ton cargo capacity and requiring 9 crew (assuming no gunners). To double the crew's private quarters will take 18 tons or ~8.5% of the available cargo space.

The 400 ton subsidized has 5 crew. Losing 10 ton to crew accommodation takes ~5% of the available cargo space.

The same calc for 200 ton free traders sees them losing ~10%. But it could be argued that the smaller the ship, the less regular the run, the less appetite there is for losing income potential.

Just some thoughts, use or ignore as you see fit

 

[Patron Zero]

I've always seen it as 'working' ships, merchants and freighters being more focused on the size-capacity of their cargo bays than how crew are berthed.

Mind that is not suggesting crews live in 'steerage' conditions but a more efficient use of available space for such purpose, likely affording a larger common area as 'compensation'.

The rub is if a ship offers transport service, then accommodations for passengers will come at the cost of space otherwise set-aside for the crew in general.

Basing the above on the hubris of a 100Ton or 200Ton vessel not specifically designed as a dedicated liner, larger ships offering more latitude in their layouts a given.