Rules Only: The economics of crew skills

[Spinward Flow]

I was referring more to your assertion that the 400 ton ship had ten crew positions if fully crewed.

10 positions ... 5 crew ... meaning every 1 crew person holds 2 positions.

It’s virtually canon from the early plans on that several ships double bunk by design without resorting to the two positions/one crewman expedient.

The ones that do are military, paramilitary/exploratory or privately owned ships.
Gunners and Troops tend to be the first to be assigned double occupancy when it happens.

Commercial ships specify one 4 ton stateroom per crew required.

LBB2.81, p14

In some starships (especially exploratory vessels, military ships, and privately-owned starships), double occupancy is allowed in staterooms. No stateroom can contain more than two persons however, as it would strain the ship's life support equipment. A commercial ship must have one stateroom for each member of the crew.

When filling a second identical slot (that is, a high-skilled Engineer covering for another required-but-absent Engineer), remember the skill-level penalty for both positions!

Engineer-3: First position, he's Engineer-2 (3-1=2). Second position, he's Engineer-1 (he's Engineer-2 in the first position, -1 for dual-role).

Um ... no.
Engineering-2 skill means you can fill 2 positions at Engineering-1 skill ... because -1 skill for each position.

Skill-2 (-1) / Skill-2 (-1) = Skill-1/Skill-1

So Egineering-2 can function as Engineering-1 plus Engineering-1.
1 Engineer for 2 crew positions.

This isn't THAT complicated ...

"The average skill level of a non-player character in his assigned job (and hence the background level of the combat system) is assumed to be two." (LBB5 '80, p. 44).

That’s professional naval ships.

Point to the words in the quote provided that limit the attribution of average skill level of non-player characters to professional naval ships exclusively. When you are able to do so, put the words in bold text so everyone can see them.

 

[Grav_Moped]

10 positions ... 5 crew ... meaning every 1 crew person holds 2 positions.

The ones that do are military, paramilitary/exploratory or privately owned ships.
Gunners and Troops tend to be the first to be assigned double occupancy when it happens.

Commercial ships specify one 4 ton stateroom per crew required.

LBB2.81, p14

That is, they have to be constructed with that many staterooms. What the operator does with those staterooms after delivery is a separate question. See the A2 Far Trader as an example of how that goes...

Um ... no.
Engineering-2 skill means you can fill 2 positions at Engineering-1 skill ... because -1 skill for each position.

Skill-2 (-1) / Skill-2 (-1) = Skill-1/Skill-1

So Egineering-2 can function as Engineering-1 plus Engineering-1.
1 Engineer for 2 crew positions.

This isn't THAT complicated ...

It is exactly that complicated. At level-2, the PC is filling the first position at level-2, normal workload. Working two crew roster slots, he's filling the first one at level-1. The second job is performed at one level below that. This reflects shift coverage issues as well as not being able to be two places at once if needed.

As I noted, Pilot/Navigator is different because you're starting with level-2 in each (4 skill points total), so it's 1 and 1 after the penalty. Engineer-2 as two engineers is only drawing from 2 skill points, not 4. (Also, Pilot skill includes a subset of Navigation per its definition, but that's beside the point.)

Point to the words in the quote provided that limit the attribution of average skill level of non-player characters to professional naval ships exclusively. When you are able to do so, put the words in bold text so everyone can see them.

Wasn't claiming it did. What it means is that for the purposes of HG Combat, PCs or NPCs with only Skill-1 incur a penalty to their effectiveness (and those with skill above 2 provide advantages). It also suggests that characters from the basic chargen systems (LBB2, S4) could well be presumed to be at least Level-2 in their primary skill (as a conversion factor) because they tend to get fewer total skill points.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It is exactly that complicated.

Ugh. You're confusing yourself at this point.

At level-2, the PC is filling the first position at level-2, normal workload. Working two crew roster slots, he's filling the first one at level-1. The second job is performed at one level below that. This reflects shift coverage issues as well as not being able to be two places at once if needed.

You have arrived at the WRONG conclusion with absolute and unshakable confidence.

Allow me to shake your confidence in your interpretation.
Repeating, because it seems necessary ...

LBB2.81, p16:

One person may fill two crew positions, providing he or she has the skill to otherwise perform the work. However, because of the added burden, each position is filled with skill minus one, and the individual draws salary equal to 75%of each position; thus, to fill two positions, the character must have at least skill level-2 in each

The formula for two positions is Skill A(-1)/Skill B(-1) for filling two positions.
Engineer/Engineer simply sets Skill A and Skill B as the same skill, rather than needing different skills. Observe ...

Skill A = Pilot-2
Skill B = Navigator-2
Pilot/Navigator

• Skill A -1 / Skill B -1
• = Pilot-2 (-1) / Navigator-2 (-1)
• = Pilot-1/Navigator-1

Now, watch very carefully what is happening ...

Skill A = Pilot-2 Engineering-2
Skill B = Navigator-2 Engineering-2
Pilot/Navigator Engineer/Engineer

• Skill A -1 / Skill B -1
• = Pilot-2 Engineering-2 (-1) / Navigator-2 Engineering-2 (-1)
• = Pilot-1/Navigator-1 Engineering-1/Engineering-1

The only difference between the two is what skills get plugged into the variables of Skill A and Skill B.
That's IT.

The rule doesn't make an exception if the two positions are using the same skill (twice).
The rule merely says that each position is filled at skill minus one for each respective position.
There is nothing there about cumulative -1 penalties stacking up at all.
That's why it explicitly says you need level-2 in each skill to account for the -1 applied separately to each skill in each position.

If you don't believe me, I've provided book and page number so you can go look it up for yourself.

 

[Condottiere]

You could deep freeze the gunners.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You could deep freeze the gunners.

The Frozen Watch aren't exactly known for their Imperial Marksmanship Academy scores when they haven't been thawed out yet ...
Also, they're not that great at routine maintenance and upkeep tasks while in hibernation, so ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Ugh. You're confusing yourself at this point.

You have arrived at the WRONG conclusion with absolute and unshakable confidence.

Allow me to shake your confidence in your interpretation.
Repeating, because it seems necessary ...

LBB2.81, p16:

The formula for two positions is Skill A(-1)/Skill B(-1) for filling two positions.
Engineer/Engineer simply sets Skill A and Skill B as the same skill, rather than needing different skills. Observe ...

Skill A = Pilot-2
Skill B = Navigator-2
Pilot/Navigator

• Skill A -1 / Skill B -1
• = Pilot-2 (-1) / Navigator-2 (-1)
• = Pilot-1/Navigator-1

Now, watch very carefully what is happening ...

Skill A = Pilot-2 Engineering-2
Skill B = Navigator-2 Engineering-2
Pilot/Navigator Engineer/Engineer

• Skill A -1 / Skill B -1
• = Pilot-2 Engineering-2 (-1) / Navigator-2 Engineering-2 (-1)
• = Pilot-1/Navigator-1 Engineering-1/Engineering-1

The only difference between the two is what skills get plugged into the variables of Skill A and Skill B.
That's IT.

The rule doesn't make an exception if the two positions are using the same skill (twice).
The rule merely says that each position is filled at skill minus one for each respective position.
There is nothing there about cumulative -1 penalties stacking up at all.
That's why it explicitly says you need level-2 in each skill to account for the -1 applied separately to each skill in each position.

If you don't believe me, I've provided book and page number so you can go look it up for yourself.

Disagree. The key issue is that you're double-counting skill points.
Pilot-2 (2 points) and Navigator-2 (2 points) -> [Deduct one point from each skill by position] -> Pilot-1, Navigator-1 .
Engineer-2 (2 points) and... what? -> [Deduct one point from each skill by position, but there's only one skill involved] -> Engineer-1, Engineer-0.

This isn't about stacking penalties. It's about counting skill points properly.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This isn't about stacking penalties. It's about counting skill points properly.

I think you broke your own argument.
I've already demonstrated how it works.
I even used fill in the blank to demonstrate how it works in actual practice.

Still waiting for a ping return of comprehension to what has been presented as demonstrably obvious as possible.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This isn't about stacking penalties. It's about counting skill points properly.

Me:
(Skill A -1) applies to crew position 1
(Skill B -1) applies to crew position 2
The reduction to Skill A for use in crew position 1 does not affect the reduction to Skill B for use in crew position 2 (hint: they're separate positions).
Therefore ... Gunnery-2 skill can be used for Skill A AND Skill B inputs (just read the character sheet, that's where the info comes from).
Skill A -1 = Gunnery-1 skill applies to crew position 1
Skill B -1 = Gunnery-1 skill applies to crew position 2
Result ... Gunner/Gunner with Gunnery-1/Gunnery-1 from Gunnery-2 skill on the character sheet as the result.

You:
{ [ (Skill A -1) for crew position 1 ] -1 more for crew position 2 }
The reduction to Skill A for use in crew position 1 also counts against the reduction to Skill B for use in crew position 2.
Therefore ... Gunnery-3 skill can be used for Skill A and Skill B.
Skill A -1 = Gunnery-2 skill applies to crew position 1
Skill A -1 -1 = Gunnery-1 skill applies to crew position 2
Result ... Gunner/Gunner with Gunnery-2/Gunnery-1 from Gunnery-3 skill on the character sheet as the result.

This isn't about stacking penalties.

Every indication that you're offering is that it IS about stacking penalties with your interpretation ... which is hilarious since that interpretation is explicitly NOT what the Rules As Written are saying.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The point (no pun intended) is that if you're a pilot/navigator, you lose one point of pilot for doing the navigator job too, and one point of navigator for being the pilot also. Make sense?

So, if you're an engineer/engineer, you lose one point of engineer for doing another engineer's worth of work besides your own, and in the second position you also lose one point of engineer for doing another engineer's work besides your own (that is, the first position).

If they were two different skills, you'd lose one point from each. You're arguing that because it's the same skill, you don't.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You're arguing that because it's the same skill, you don't.

Correct, but allow me to elaborate on why.

Again, returning to the Rules As Written (RAW).

LBB2.81, p16:

One person may fill two crew positions, providing he or she has the skill to otherwise perform the work. However, because of the added burden, each position is filled with skill minus one, and the individual draws salary equal to 75%of each position; thus, to fill two positions, the character must have at least skill level-2 in each

So you have two positions to fill by one person.
When you have one person filling two positions, it's not a -1 skill per position ... or to put it another way, the skill on the character sheet doesn't get modified. Your character doesn't lose skill points.

Let's see if I can explain the different directions of thinking here, because the nuances of trajectory in the assumptions matter ... and I'm sorry for getting pedantic about this, but the mere fact we're arguing about this makes the pedantic obviousness necessary.

Think of it it terms of (basic) computer programming ... or even just simple algebra with variables.

You can either do (A-0) for a single position ... or (A-1) and (B-1) for a dual position.
The variables for A and B are database lookup values (go to character sheet, read in skill value). The arithmetic is not "editing" the values stored in the database (the character sheet), it's just a lookup to pull the value.

So if the value being pulled is ... 2 for A ... and 2 for B ... then the output of (A-1)=1 and the output of (B-1)=1.

With me so far?

So where are you getting the values for the variables A and B?
From the character sheet.
Does the formula "care" which skill is used for A and/or which skill is used for B?
NO.
All it cares about is that the skill being slotted in for A is at least Skill-2 and the skill being slotted in for B is at least Skill-2 ... so that after the (A-1) and (B-1) both A and B are still 1+ (with the one exception of Steward skill, because the minimum required is 0 not 1).
THAT'S IT.

Designers are then free to assign ANY SKILL to the A/B dual position assignment ... like Pilot/Navigator.
What is not prohibited per the Rule As Written is using the same skill for both A and B.

So a Gunner/Gunner with Gunnery-2 skill on the character sheet works like so.
There are two positions to fill ... Gunner1 (A) and Gunner2 (B).
A character with Gunnery-2 fills the Gunner1 (A) position using (2-1=1) Gunnery-1 ... while also filling the Gunner2 (B) position using (2-1=1) Gunnery-1.

each position is filled with skill minus one
each position ... (significant pause) ... is filled ... (significant pause again) .... with skill minus one

Gunner1 (A) position is filled with the relevant skill minus one ... Gunnery-2 (from the character sheet) minus one is Gunnery-1.
Gunner2 (B) position is filled with the relevant skill minus one ... Gunnery-2 (from the character sheet again) minus one is Gunnery-1.
A = 2-1 = 1 for position A
B = 2-1 = 1 for position B
The calculation of what skill amount fills position A has no effect or relevance on the calculation of what skill amount fills position B.
(A-1) does not affect (B-1) in the formula.
If A and B are set to use the same skill, you do not wind up with (A-1) and (A-2) ... because position B is not skill minus two.
The B position is filled at skill minus one independently of the A position skill requirement.
Not minus two ... minus ONE.

The Rule As Written is completely agnostic as to which skills can be slotted into the -1/-1 position formula in what combinations. It does not include ANY wording to the effect in the direction of an (A-1) and (A-2) interpretation like you're advocating for when A and B are set to draw data from the character sheet using the same skill for A and B.

The -1 to A has NO EFFECT on the -1 to B.
Why?
Because ... each position is filled with skill minus one.

That means (A-1) and (B-1).
What you choose to fill A and B with as far as skill number from the character sheet is up to you, because A and B are variables.
The skill numbers on the character sheet do not change just because of a crew assignment.

If I'm a Pilot/Navigator with Pilot-2 and Navigation-2 skills, while my character is filling my crew positions as a Pilot/Navigator I do not edit my character sheet to reduce my skills to Pilot-1 and Navigation-1 on my character sheet. I do not lose skill points on my character because my character is filling two positions. The skills on my character sheet remain unchanged. The only thing that changes is "how much" of my skills can be applied to each crew position ... -1 to the first position and -1 to the second position.

So my "throughput" for each position is effectively Pilot-1 for position A ... and Navigation-1 for position B, but the skills recorded on my character sheet remain unchanged.

If I'm a Gunner/Gunner with Gunnery-2 skill, while my character is filling my crew positions as a Gunner/Gunner I do not edit my character sheet to reduce my skill to Gunnery-1 on my character sheet. I do not lose skill points on my character because my character is filling two positions. The skill level on my character sheet remains unchanged. The only thing that changes is "how much" of my skill can be applied to each crew position ... -1 to the first position and -1 to the second position.

So my "throughput" for each position is effectively Gunnery-1 for position A ... and Gunnery-1 for position B, but the skill recorded on my character sheet remains unchanged.

"If none of this makes sense to you, it may already be too late."
- Shadoe Stevens, Shadoevision

 

[Grav_Moped]

I flatly disagree and have explained why, and I'll leave it there.

 

[HanleyTucks]

This is the difficulty with these tags. Labelling things like "rules only" means that when people have suggestions for making things a bit easier and/or more interesting, we have to be silent. This leaves a bunch of people completely ignoring actual play to chuck quotations at one another out of a rules set, paying more attention to the precise wording than the original writers did.

 

[whartung]

I flatly disagree and have explained why, and I'll leave it there.

I agree and disagree with the idea of "double gunners".

I agree, because philosophically, I think a "gunner" is a guy on a console with a big red button. With the distances and time scales and everything else about how Traveller combat is portrayed, there's no reason that a single gunner can't fire multiple weapons. Sulu mashing down the phaser and photon buttons.

That said, on the other hand, there's the other Traveller meme of "1 man, 1 gun". In that case, while I agree with most of the other "1 person 2 crew" parts, I don't think the Gunner fits the bill. You can't have 1 man manning 2 stations. Han and Luke are on opposite sides of the ship for a reason.

In the end, the "1 man 2 crew" is not universal. I don't think you can have Pilot and Medic, as there's the potential for overlap, and that's where it breaks down. Situationaly, the roles need to be considered as being as independent as possible.

 

[DaltonSpence]

This sounds like one of those schismatic things where one side says "It can't be so!" while the other side says "It must be so!" with neither side giving an angstrom. You've both made your arguments supporting your positions ad nauseum so unless someone comes up with a completely different third interpretation of the rules could we please consider this debate finished?

Dalton “making more noise doesn't make things more true” Spence​

 

[bookwyrm]

I think Whartung gave us the Third Rule. there are some crew positions that can be doubled up on one crew member, while others are bad combinations. or even impossible.

the rule, although it looks specifically worded, is also vague enough, with no examples given, that both these interpretations are possible. I'm pretty sure I've read in Traveller, in a few places, that it's up to the GM to make the game work the way they want.

example: Gunner/Medic. this person shouldn't get penalized if doing one or the other. it's when doing both at the same time, like treating a patient in the medical center while shooting the ships weapon remotely.

example: Sensors/Sensors. this person is doing the work of 2 people. if doing just one of offensive, defensive, or scanning with sensors, not a problem. but if trying to get a sensor lock for the ships gunner while trying to scramble the enemies sensor lock, all while scanning the enemy ship for a called shot on it's bridge, the Sensor Operator will be less effective doing all three at the same time.

just my silly Cr0.2 thoughts on the subject.

 

[Condottiere]

This, like a lot of things, is a question of time and space.

When does one have to perform the duties of various crew positions, and where.

Compartmentalization, in order that one does not confuse the necessary actions of each crew position with one another.

 

[aramis]

I think Whartung gave us the Third Rule. there are some crew positions that can be doubled up on one crew member, while others are bad combinations. or even impossible.

the rule, although it looks specifically worded, is also vague enough, with no examples given, that both these interpretations are possible. I'm pretty sure I've read in Traveller, in a few places, that it's up to the GM to make the game work the way they want.

example: Gunner/Medic. this person shouldn't get penalized if doing one or the other. it's when doing both at the same time, like treating a patient in the medical center while shooting the ships weapon remotely.

example: Sensors/Sensors. this person is doing the work of 2 people. if doing just one of offensive, defensive, or scanning with sensors, not a problem. but if trying to get a sensor lock for the ships gunner while trying to scramble the enemies sensor lock, all while scanning the enemy ship for a called shot on it's bridge, the Sensor Operator will be less effective doing all three at the same time.

just my silly Cr0.2 thoughts on the subject.

It's pretty clear to me.
[q="TTB p61"]
One person may fill two crew positions, providing he or she has the skills needed for both jobs. However, because of the added burden, each position is filled with skill minus one, and the individual draws salary equal to 75% of each position; thus, to fill two positions, the character must have skill level 2 in each, except steward, which requires level 1. No person may assume the duties of more than two crew positions except in the case of an emergency.[/q]

"each position is filled with skill minus one," that's -1 for the position, not -1 to the skill itself. Two engineering slots? Need Engineer 2, since each is filled at skill -1. SLot A is 2-1, and B is 2-1. Key wording: "each position."
Note that Pilot, Engineer, Medic, Gunner and Navigator all require skill 1 to fill at all. (TTB 60); Steward can be filled with steward 0. So a Steward 1 can fill two steward slots... but probably not to satisfactory levels.

Note that later rulesets (TNE and T4) use hours calculations; skill 2 or better allows covering more hours of maintenance per hour of work than expected, AND reduces chances of breakdowns... the skill-1 penalty is thus a double whammy there.

One of the problems is that ship's crew pay is encoded in game rules but reflects both practical requirements (maintenance) and in-setting legal requirements, and in setting NPC expectations.

Now, as for gunners and turrets... Gunner Interact specifically mentions "in the turret" and is the only way in CT a gunner gets to add skill for To Hits under Bk 2.

Gunner in turret is required to fire more than 3 missiles per missile launcher in the turret (TTB 76)- the ML can launch one per round and carries only 3 ready. (That's insanely slow, to be honest.) And we're not talking huge missiles, either - they're smaller (1m L 0.15m D -See SS3 p2) than the AIM-9L Sidewinder. (3.02m L, 0.127m diameter, ignoring the fins, which bring it to 0.28m across.).

So, essentially, in combat, a gunner is needed for reloading, not for firing.

Also, note that I can't find a requirement for gunners to fire at all in TTB.

Target is the only absolute requirement under Bk2/TTB rules to fire ships weapons... it notes that it controls all turrets, too. And by itself does not provide to-hit DMs. (TTB 70)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Now, as for gunners and turrets... Gunner Interact specifically mentions "in the turret" and is the only way in CT a gunner gets to add skill for To Hits under Bk 2.

...

So, essentially, in combat, a gunner is needed for reloading, not for firing.

Yet:

TTB p76:
Reloading: Each launcher (sand or missile) has an inherent capacity for three missiles or canisters. This means that a triple turret with three missile launchers has a total of 9 missiles in ready position.
When a launcher's missiles or canisters are exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns. A gunner engaged in reloading is unable to fire other weaponry in the turret.

A Gunner is clearly assumed to fire weaponry, not just reload missiles.

TTB p72:
Below this data, list all turrets (numbered consecutively starting with T-1). After each turret designation, indicate the armament with which each turret is equipped, using the letters B (beam laser), P (pulse laser), M (missile launcher), and S (sandcaster). A triple turret would have up to three letters indicating the weapons installed in it, while a single turret would only have one. After the letters for the weapons, indicate the skill of the gunner in the turret. Also indicate the number of missiles present in each launch rack.

The Gunnery skill is not conditional, it's assumed: A Gunner is assumed to be in the turret.

Note that LBB2 puts it slightly differently:

LBB2'81, p27:
A triple turret would have up to three letters indicating the weapons installed in it, while a single turret would only have one. After the letters for the weapons, indicate the expertise of the gunner manning the turret. Also indicate the number of missiles present in each launch rack.

Still not conditional, a Gunner is assumed to man the turret. Presumably not just to be decorative.


What is Gunnery skill:

TTB p26:
Gunnery: The individual is skilled in the operation of gunnery mounted on board starships and spacecraft. The use of such weaponry is covered in the chapter on space combat.
Defensive and offensive weapons are mounted on a variety of interplanetary and interstellar vessels. Gunnery skill qualifies an individual to operate such weaponry, and to be hired on a ship's crew with the title of gunner. Gunnery may also be used for similar weapons mounted on ATVs or air/rafts.

Why would space weapons need to be operated it they could fire themselves?

TTB p53:
Mail and Incidentals: Subsidized merchants may receive mail delivery contracts, usually as an adjunct to their established routes. Five tons of ship cargo capacity must be committed to postal duty on a full time basis, the ship must be armed, and a gunner must be a part of the crew.

Why would we need a Gunner, if the weapons fired themselves? What use would the Gunner be without Gunner Interact software, yet that is not required?

Also, note that I can't find a requirement for gunners to fire at all in TTB.

There is also not a specific requirement to own or hold a gun to attack in personal combat. There is even no specific requirement to have hands to attack!

In the space combat rules there is no specific requirement for any crew, neither a Pilot, nor Gunners, yet they are assumed to be there and their skills are noted on the ship card.

For example:

TTB p71:
Maneuver/evade is a series of six programs which automatically produce minor movement for a ship, thus reducing its chances of being hit by laser fire. Each program has a DM based on pilot expertise (multiply pilot skill by the stated fraction and round down to a whole number). In addition, these programs allow the use of the maneuver drive as required, just like the normal maneuver program

Yet the rules do not require the Pilot to be conscious, on the Bridge, or even on the ship at all, just hired for the position of Pilot.

Target is the only absolute requirement under Bk2/TTB rules to fire ships weapons... it notes that it controls all turrets, too. And by itself does not provide to-hit DMs. (TTB 70)

And the Maneuvre program controls the M-drive, so don't need any Pilot, right?
And with a jump cassette we need neither a Pilot, a Navigator, nor an Engineer to jump, right?



This is a silly discussion, of course a ship needs a crew to function fully. The Pilot and Navigator must be on the bridge, a Gunner in each turret to be used, and Engineers nursing the drives, as is their jobs and functions. Otherwise ships would not have crew, just passengers. People would do nothing in space, besides sip drinks, served by a robot, and we would not have a game to play.

Or as the rules puts it:

Specific jobs or tasks require crew members to perform them.

 

[kilemall]

Don’t overlook the Return Fire program and phasing, an auto fire system effectively doubling laser fire, but which requires an enemy to fire and explicitly disallows gunnery skill DM. That would suggest it’s possible to have unmanned turrets prepped to execute less effective fire upon a surprise attack.

 

[Spinward Flow]

A Gunner is assumed to be in the turret.

LBB2 assumes a gunner in the turret.
LBB5 assumes a gunner controls an entire battery of turrets (often times, more than 1 turret per battery).

When CT was written (1977-1982) putting a gunner IN the turret made more sense, particularly for LBB2 which doesn't even have the concept of battery fire of weapons at all.

The idea of putting gunners in EVERY turret starts faceplanting pretty darn hard when you start dealing with warships and collecting multiple weapons into battieries (LBB5.80) that fire salvos for Time On Target. At that point, you're looking at remote manning of turrets and the gunners are just controlling them from a fire control center.

And manual loading of missiles?
Please.
These aren't TL=5 submarines.
By the time you get to TL=7+ you get autoloaders.

CT Striker Book 3, p7 (trimmed for brevity):

All the weapon's loaders may be replaced by an autoloader; weapons in remote mounts must have autoloaders.
Autoloaders are available at tech level 7+

So you've you've got a TL=6 starship, er ... boat, um ... actually, you need TL=7 minimum to have drives and weapons on any space craft (per LBB5.80). LBB2.81 is even harder, since no standard drives (not even A) are available until TL=9 ...

Why would space weapons need to be operated it they could fire themselves?

Their operations are substantially automated, but need a "man in the loop" for authorization to fire and for priority target designation.
The crew is there to provide oversight, troubleshooting of the automation and perform routine maintenance.

Why would we need a Gunner, if the weapons fired themselves? What use would the Gunner be without Gunner Interact software, yet that is not required?

LBB2.81 computer programming rules have aged even worse than decking rules in Shadowrun.
'Nuff said.

There is also not a specific requirement to own or hold a gun to attack in personal combat.

Uh ... because Unarmed Combat could, you know ... happen?

There is even no specific requirement to have hands to attack!

Headbutt doesn't require use of hands.
Kicks do not require use of hands (and you deserve a Boot To The Head™ if you think they do!).
Psionics do not require use of hands ...

In the space combat rules there is no specific requirement for any crew, neither a Pilot, nor Gunners, yet they are assumed to be there and their skills are noted on the ship card.

Yet the rules do not require the Pilot to be conscious, on the Bridge, or even on the ship at all, just hired for the position of Pilot.

And the Maneuvre program controls the M-drive, so don't need any Pilot, right?
And with a jump cassette we need neither a Pilot, a Navigator, nor an Engineer to jump, right?

Um ... munchkin much with your rules lawyering ad absurdum?
Also, your objections are transparently ludicrous.