CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?

[Grav_Moped]

For skills like Gunnery, it means that with Gunnery-2+ you can have fewer gunners than Turrets on a ship, but only when there are "a lot of turrets" on a ship so the drop fractions part of the (house) rule yields a result of one fewer Gunners being needed than when all crew have Gunnery-1.

This is how you get weapon batteries in High Guard, right?

 

[Spinward Flow]

This is how you get weapon batteries in High Guard, right?

Kind of ... but not exactly.

LBB2 and LBB5 really don't like to agree on much of anything about turret gunners on low end starships and small craft.
LBB2 puts the requirement at 1 gunner per turret.
LBB5 puts the requirement at 1 gunner per battery.
These are related but not equivalent ... especially when you've got mixed turrets that have more than one battery per turret in the 1000 tons and under category of hull sizes (hull codes 0-A).

If a ship has mutliple batteries per turret, you need 1 gunner for that turret.
If a ship has multiple turrets per battery, you need 1 gunner for that battery.

The idea I outlined above would be such that if you had 11 batteries of some turret weapon system (take your pick), you could either hire 11 gunners with Gunnery-1 to crew those 11 batteries ... or you could hire 10 gunners with Gunnery-2 to crew those 11 batteries (because 10*1.1=11).

Or if you had 6 mixed turrets that needed to be crewed, you could either hire 6 gunners with Gunnery-1 to crew those 6 mixed turrets ... or you could hire 5 gunners with Gunnery-3 to crew those 6 turrets (because 5*1.2=6).

Like I said, it's harder to make use of the higher skill means less crew needed when it comes to how gunnery crews get allocated, but with enough gunnery crew required it CAN start to make a slight difference.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Like I said, it's harder to make use of the higher skill means less crew needed when it comes to how gunnery crews get allocated, but with enough gunnery crew required it CAN start to make a slight difference.

I was thinking more in terms of that serving as justification for the "gunner per battery instead of per turret" and "engineer per 100Td drives instead of per 35Td drives" changes between LBB2 and HG. Actual implementation would differ, of course. (The actual reason is that as you get into the BCS size range the personnel requirements start to look silly. But then, the engineering staffing looks silly compared to real-world ocean-going ship personnel requirements too.)

Another thing is that (particularly with gunners) you're paying dearly in lost +DMs for short-handing the crew that way.

 

[coliver988]

there are some rules in Cepheus about manning turrets that may be useful:

Each turret requires a gunner to operate it. Weapon bays require two gunners, while main guns require ten gun crewmembers each. Each shield requires one gunner. Ships with Model/2 or better electronics may automate turrets: one turret per Sensor DM bonus (including DM+0) can be automated

and if a turret requires munitions, automation or manual is a factor as well.

I've not looked through the T5 rules to see if there are rules for that (and with 800+ pages of rules, I would certainly hope there was!)

 

[whulorigan]

I've not looked through the T5 rules to see if there are rules for that (and with 800+ pages of rules, I would certainly hope there was!)

Based upon my understanding, controls in T5 for all systems are much more detailed in terms of assigning the actual control of each ship component to a designated control console (any number of local component-control panels can be assigned to a control console). Each control console can be operated by a single crewman, and all local component-control panels must have an assigned operating console.

Manning requirements are determined by comparing how much Ability (Skill+Characteristic) can be assigned by the crew member, and how much Ability can be applied by the computer systems in the ship.

T5.10 Book 2 Starships, p.247:

A Console is a Task Enabler. It can resolve a task with an undifferentiated C+S= TL, but it needs a crew person to make the decision and give the execution command. If that crew member has C+S greater than the Console, then the task can be resolved using his (or her, or its) his own C+S. The crew member cannot add only skill, or only characteristic; he contributes his complete C+S. A Console with a Brain installed can operate independently, the Brain substituting for the Crew person.

A Computer is a Task Resolver. It can resolve a Task itself with C+S= TL and without the intervention or supervision of a crew member. The computer expresses itself through consoles. It can apply its own C+S (if higher than a console) to a console. It can serve as the crew person to make the decision for a console. The computer can provide this supervision to consoles equal to its Model Number (bis models add 1 to the Model Number). A Computer with a Brain installed has independent decision making ability; the Brain substitutes for the Crew person. A Computer with a Brain at TL 16 or greater is an Artificial Intelligence (prior to TL 16, the appearance of AI is simply programming.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I seem to recall either book 1 or TBBB specifically stated that there was an exception for solo-operation of a Type-S; i.e. a man with a pilot-1 and engineering-1 could operate a scout ship with both skills reduced to Zero or something along those lines. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

 

[Condottiere]

My feeling is that specific exception is very much plot driven.

 

[mike wightman]

It is not an exception for the scout, any ship you design that is 100-199t can get by with a crew of one - the pilot.

You only need extra crew if you carry a high passenger or two, or are armed.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I guess that was it.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It is not an exception for the scout, any ship you design that is 100-199t can get by with a crew of one - the pilot.

You only need extra crew if you carry a high passenger or two, or are armed.

In the context of early CT, it was almost explicitly an exception for the Type S (there aren't many possible 100Td ships in LBB2 and the rules discouraged ships in other than 100/200Td size increments). But, like the discounted "standard hulls" that often didn't match any possible combination of drives exactly, it was written to avoid looking like it was a specific carve-out to drive a particular outcome.

 

[mike wightman]

It's not an exception, it is explicitly rules as written. While there is not much you can do with the standard hull because of the compartmentalisation there is a lot you can do with a custom hull, especially if you use a 199t hull

The question is what do you want to use your 195-199t ship for? Are you going to build it for trading and carrying passengers? Is it going to be for exploration and adventure?

The main reason I would use a 195-9t ship design is to have a ship that can be crewed by a small PC party or even for solo play,

Build a ship at 200t and you are required to have an engineer or two and a medic - that's two to three extra crew staterooms (8-12 tons) so a 188-192t ship has the same passenger/cargo potential as your 200t ship.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's not an exception, it is explicitly rules as written. While there is not much you can do with the standard hull because of the compartmentalisation there is a lot you can do with a custom hull, especially if you use a 199t hull

I agree that there's a sweet spot there (and others have found it as well), if you're willing to forego the standard hull discount.

But the standard hull discount exists to steer players away from it.

 

[mike wightman]

The standard hulls are really only there for the standard designs, once the players have made enough Cr to get their first custom built ship then the standard hulls are too limiting.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The standard hulls are really only there for the standard designs, once the players have made enough Cr to get their first custom built ship then the standard hulls are too limiting.

They're to nudge (force?) players to the standard designs by making nonstandard hulls more expensive.

But except for the Types S, A, and M, the standard hulls' drive bays don't fit the drives exactly. For the Type R, they don't even fit the upgrade-track drives (Size C->D, never mind that they don't need Size C drives in the first place) either. Again, it's a mechanic to implicitly constrain player choices without explicitly saying so.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Build a ship at 200t and you are required to have an engineer or two and a medic - that's two to three extra crew staterooms (8-12 tons) so a 188-192t ship has the same passenger/cargo potential as your 200t ship.

The real kicker on that difference is the life support and crew salaries, in addition to the expense of the tonnage. It's something I found out as a natural consequence of using a 194 ton hull for my Spinward X-Courier and Spinward Flex Courier designs, where the design imperative was to keep overhead costs below Cr 12,500 per jump so that a paid off or subsidized ship could operate at a profit on every jump simply based on the guaranteed Cr 25,000 in revenue from delivering mail cargo.

With a crew of 2 (pilot, gunner) I could get away with Cr 4000 in life support (2 staterooms), Cr 3500 per 2 weeks in minimum crew salaries plus Cr 100 for berthing fees per jump ... a total of Cr 7600 ... which met my goal of under Cr 12,500 per jump.

Even with a more skilled crew of 2 (pilot/navigator, engineer/gunner), overhead costs would be Cr 4000 in life support, Cr 6600 per 2 weeks in crew salaries plus Cr 100 for berthing fees ... a total of Cr 10,700 ... which still met my goal of under Cr 12,500 per jump.

Change the tonnage from 194 up to 200 and suddenly I needed to add 2 engineers plus 1 medic to the crew requirements.

With a crew of 5 (pilot, chief engineer, engineer, medic, gunner) overhead costs would balloon to Cr 10,000 in life support, Cr 8700 per 2 weeks in crew salaries plus Cr 100 for berthing fees ... a total of Cr 18,800 ... which completely blows through the goal of staying under Cr 12,500 per jump.

So those extra 6 tons (194 to 200) would cost 12 tons in stateroom space for 3 extra crew members and Cr 11,200 extra per jump in life support and crew salaries, threatening the reliability of the absolute minimum profit margin per jump. Even if the change "worked" from a Naval Architect standpoint of allocating tonnage, it "didn't work" from an economic imperatives standpoint when needing to "survive profitably" on mail cargo deliveries alone (so actual cargo hold space would always operate as "bonus pay" in practice).

That kind of absolute low end minimalist design is only possible in the 100-199 ton hull code: 1 range, since anything larger simply becomes too big/expensive to do the job on a "fixed" Cr 25,000/12,500 per jump mail cargo revenue stream alone.



Bottom line, it depends on what your operational constraint imperatives are whether or not the hull code 1 or 2 exchange "makes sense" in the final analysis.

Sometimes it will ... such as when you want to have more than just 1 hardpoint for whatever reason.
Sometimes it won't ... and when it won't, it REALLY won't.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Regarding the stats on your X-Courier and Flex-Courier ....

I think this is why most of my groups preferred "off the shelf" stock ships. I remember trying my hand at basic b2 naval architecture, and ... well ... it got into the realms of "my brain hurt .... bad" territory. All the while I was trying to get a handle on physics for a possible engineering career.

In all seriousness, the groups I was part of where starship operations were significant it was essentially shoe box accounting; i.e. how big the ship, who are we hiring to fill positions, how much is that, divvy up the expenses for life support and berthing, and don't sweat the details on software or gunnery until you need to burn that bridge.

On another thread someone was arguing about how a custom 100 ton "stateroom-less" trader was uneconomical. When our group did Merchant Prince sessions using the charts and tables trade booklet, even just trading and shipping mundane cargos around Regina we could turn a healthy profit. In fact doing mail was a loss leader, or so I recall. Jogging my memory I think the return on mail didn't justify the cargo space it took up, but I'm a little hazy on that.

I honestly don't recall life support being that expensive, but it's been a while.

 

[Spinward Flow]

even just trading and shipping mundane cargos around Regina we could turn a healthy profit. In fact doing mail was a loss leader, or so I recall.

Mail is Cr 5000 per ton ... the "densest" revenue generator per ton outside of speculative cargo trading.
The only "downside" to mail is that there's a limit of 5 tons of the stuff, so usually not enough to even make payroll/life support overhead.
Passengers and "ordinary" cargo tends to run Cr 1000-1800 per ton in revenue generation capacity.

If you've got a sweet little speculative cargo racket going (say, in and around Regina like you cite) then it is perfectly possible to exceed Cr 5000 per ton that you would be generating from delivering mail. When ~30 tons can generate multi-MCr in speculation profits, then the revenue "density" of mail transport is going to feel a bit like a loss leader (as you say).

It's one of those cases where the Daemonology Is In the Details™ ... and why I've been at such pains with my own starship designs to attempt to examine those factors everywhere from the naval architect's office to the shipyard to the government subsidy office to loading ramp at the berth (and sometimes even beyond that far). Getting ALL of those factors to align together favorably FEELS GOOD and is immensely satisfying to my "make stuff that works" compulsions (especially if they work multiple ways on multiple levels in multiple applications).

 

[aramis]

I seem to recall either book 1 or TBBB specifically stated that there was an exception for solo-operation of a Type-S; i.e. a man with a pilot-1 and engineering-1 could operate a scout ship with both skills reduced to Zero or something along those lines. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

That exception isn't for scouts, it's for small ships.
Bk2 81 p16 crew needs (paraphrased)
🄿 Pilot: 1 pilot for any ship (>=100Td)
🄴 Engineer: if ship >= 200 Td, 1 per 35 Td of drives.
🅂 Steward: only if high passengers carried.
🄼 Medic: 1/120 passengers (round up) if ship >= 200 Td,
🄶 Gunner: 1 per turret, if the ship is operating in a threat environment.
🄲 CO: 1 if >= 1000 Td
🅇 XO: 1 if >= 1000 Td
🄰 Admin: 3 if >= 1000 Td
🄱 Total crew minimum: if >=1000Td. 10 per 1000 Td (round up). Extras not specified as to role.¹

A single individual can fill 2 positions; they operate at skill -1 in both. (same page).

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 (except steward: level-1 1.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1: I use them as hull crew, or "bosun" Hence 🄱, but 🄱 could also be "bodies". 1000 Td minimum starship crewing is 🄲🅇🄿🄴🄴🄼🄰🄰🄰🄱. That's Drives EEE.
XXX is 265 tons of drive, so 🄲🅇🄿🄴🄴 🄴🄴🄴🄴🄴 🄴🄼🄰🄰🄰... and 660 tons fuel... and about 80 tons of payload and quarters. Max out the guns and you can't get the gunners single occupancy... 10 Td guns and 25 crew at 4td each...

 

[Blue Ghost]

Mail is Cr 5000 per ton ... the "densest" revenue generator per ton outside of speculative cargo trading.
The only "downside" to mail is that there's a limit of 5 tons of the stuff, so usually not enough to even make payroll/life support overhead.
Passengers and "ordinary" cargo tends to run Cr 1000-1800 per ton in revenue generation capacity.

If you've got a sweet little speculative cargo racket going (say, in and around Regina like you cite) then it is perfectly possible to exceed Cr 5000 per ton that you would be generating from delivering mail. When ~30 tons can generate multi-MCr in speculation profits, then the revenue "density" of mail transport is going to feel a bit like a loss leader (as you say).

That must have been it. I remember more than one session where I and other players griped about having to haul mail because other cargos had a greater return. It's been so long ago that I can't remember the debate we had, but I think the Ref at the time mandated that we carry X-amount of mail, and could allot the rest of the hold to other freight. But mail was like selling gas as a gas station; it's there as a function of the market, but is literally pennies on the dollar compared to other freight.

I seem to recall that some members of different groups preferred Merchant Prince over running-n-gunning.

I guess I just don't remember the economics being all that involved. I think when we hired and paid crew we just gave them an advance upfront so we wouldn't have to worry about paying them every game week or month. I think we did the same lump sum home-economics for berthing and life support. The only time starship performance became an issue was during and after combat, and then we usually had to look up the rules and figure out what damage did what and how it effected the adventure; power plant degradation and the like.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Something (simple enough) to change ... CT Berthing Fees.

In LBB2.81, berthing fees are simply Cr 100 for a 6 day rental plus Cr 100 for each extra day thereafter.
Really really simple ... and to my mind oversimplified (for the LBB1-3 era).

Would recommend changing the Berthing Fees accounting structure to instead be:
Cr 1 per ton of vessel for a 7 day block of rental, with no refunds for unused block time if leaving early before rental time is all used.
Need 8 days? Purchase 2 blocks of 7 days.
Departure from and return to berth during a 7 day block of time is permitted (so ships can go wilderness refuel in the ocean during their berth rental time).

Putting berth rentals on a Cr 1 per ton per 7 day block basis make the economics a touch more dynamic (no Cr 100 rental for a 5000 ton ship) and more adequately reflects the "cost of accommodations" for ships and boats (including small craft) instead of being a One Size Fits All™ type of quick and dirty solution.