Troop Transports...

[far-trader]

I prefer to credit(?) the low survival rate to the example it's most likely (meant) to apply to. An aging, maintenance neglected, low tech, Free-Trader. Same for the somewhat sick low-lottery practice. You don't find the low-lottery played on better maintained ships with proper medics because they keep their gear in good function and nobody dies.

So on that Free-Trader that is willing to take low passengers, no questions asked, yep, you might die from some random malfunction or failure in the lowberth and the so called medic is probably not going to be much help. And the Captain is grinning as he explains the low-lottery to you and asks you "How many d'you think will live this time?"

You'd be better off, as long as you don't mind the security check, to take a low passage trip aboard the Fat-Trader a few berths over. They're running a regular schedule, have all their equipment properly maintained, and have a fully qualified medic aboard. You won't get to meet the Captain and nobody is talking about a low-lottery because the last time somebody died in a low-berth mishap was... come to think of it nobody has died in a low-berth mishap since the ship was launched, some 30 years ago.

 

[rancke]

So first off there's the expense. Cr2000 per soldier each time. Add another Cr900 if you want the Antidote so you can come out sooner than 60 days. That'll quickly get more expensive than lowberths at Cr50,000 plus Cr100 per use. Somewhere around 20 uses if you include Antidote.

How much does it cost to train a soldier? Every time you lose one in low berth, you're out the cost of his training, food, salary, and benefits for surviving family. If low berths really are as lethal as the CT rules indicate, slow berths[*] would be a very economical alternative.

Mind you, I don't take that as evidence that the Navy would use slow berths but as evidence that low berths aren't that lethal.

BTW, if you're sticking to the original rules, Fast Drug costs Cr200 per dose. And if that's a misprint, it's one that was carried over to The Traveller Book.


[*] Yes, I know 'fast berths' would be more logical, but I think the pun would appeal to people .

Third, depending how you read the rules it's not 100% safe either. Check the Synergy rules. The way I read it if you take the Anitidote you're looking at 1D6 x 1D6 hits to come out early. Or you're stuck waiting for the 60 days to end. Seems right, you're interupting the normal drug course and causing big stress to the body.

Seems extremely arguable to me. The synergy rule deals with taking drugs that aren't meant to be taken together. A fast antidote is designed specifically to counteract a fast drug. There are specific rules for the effect of administering antidotes that, IMO, supercedes the generic synergy rules.

Incidentally, the CT drug rules are extremely crude. It lumps every drug with a specific effect together. It assumes that only one form of each drug exist, the one that is available at the TL of introduction. Do you believe that TL15 biotechnology is incapable of creating a safer and more subtle fast drug than TL9 biotechnology or a better fast antidote than TL12 biotechnology? I sure don't. Though those improved drugs might easily be more expensive. OTOH, if you can make fast drug for Cr2000 per dose at TL9, how cheaply can you make the same drug at TL15?



Hans

 

[aramis]

For a fast-drug berth, you need a day's rations, and a half-bunk. (See FF&S, TNE. Cost is same as a Bunk, but space is halved to half a ton.) And you need to keep the poor bastards out of the way. They'll need low-levels of LS.

Much the same as if the berth were to be a tetrodotoxin berth. Which, to be honest, is my favorite form of low-berth. Induced deep coma. Give them a good rich meal, and oxidant boost, and a trickle of tetrodotoxin, and keep them comatose. Not good long term, but hey...

 

[mike wightman]

Is it worth pointing out that under High Guard rules the frozen watch is revived intact with no casualties due to the low berth process?

The low berths used in CT civilian ships are a throwback to the Dumarest novels - pretty sure there is a note in Traders and Gunboats about them being designed for use on livestock.

Naval low berths and emergency low berths carry no risks.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>Enough of a crapshoot to sap morale in a professional military, any way you slice it

a couple of percent loss was pretty good odds for long deployments until the late 1800's. I recall reading that British units shipping to distant colonies left England 10% overstrength for that reason

 

[samuelvss]

Is it worth pointing out that under High Guard rules the frozen watch is revived intact with no casualties due to the low berth process?

I did not see where that is stated. The cold watch is used to replenish the crew. Where does it say they all survive?

Naval low berths and emergency low berths carry no risks.

"Emergency low berths are also available; they will not carry passengers, but can be used for survival. Each costs Cr100,000 and displaces one ton. Each holds four persons who share the same revival die roll." LBB2 p.14

 

[samuelvss]

>Enough of a crapshoot to sap morale in a professional military, any way you slice it

a couple of percent loss was pretty good odds for long deployments until the late 1800's. I recall reading that British units shipping to distant colonies left England 10% overstrength for that reason

The basic dynamic is that your folks will take casualties that are necessary with far less complaint than those that are inflicted just to save a buck, especially when surrounded by multi-million dollar hardware.

 

[flykiller]

Enough of a crapshoot to sap morale in a professional military, any way you slice it

a couple of percent loss was pretty good odds for long deployments until the late 1800's. I recall reading that British units shipping to distant colonies left England 10% overstrength for that reason

at the time these were mostly prisoners and other social rejects. no-one cared what happened to them, and in some measure neither did they. I really don't think this same attitude would be accepted by the highly educated and trained professionals needed in a high tech military. it wouldn't even work with today's military.

 

[samuelvss]

I really don't think this same attitude would be accepted by the highly educated and trained professionals needed in a high tech military. it wouldn't even work with today's military.

Casualties from what is necessary and desirable are fine, and even build esprit, to a point. The 160th Aviation Regiment (f.k.a. T.F. 160), is a case-in-point: they killed a lot of pilots just training. This was mission-related, however, not economics related. Building lowberths instead of staterooms is strictly economic: those casualties sap morale.