Yet, more on Container ships...

[Spinward Flow]

On larger small ships with dedicated gunners, the question becomes what the heck are they doing the rest of the time (particularly during jump)?

Weapon systems tuning and maintenance, training drills (to keep skills and reflexes honed and sharpened) along with other weapons related miscellany. The gunnery crew is also probably tasked with security aboard while in jump (especially if there are passengers embarked), plus whatever odd jobs and "step and fetch" work needs to be done in support of other departments. With "nothing to shoot at" in jump space, the gunnery crew effectively becomes an additional set of hands (somewhat literally) that can help out where needed with other departments during the "down time" of jump space transits.

Also, really nice follow through on the watch rotations angle of crew manning.
For small time tramp trade ships, particularly those that don't spend a lot of time in space aside from transits between starport and jump point hauling cargoes and passengers, worrying about multiple crews in order to set up watch rotations is something of a luxury. Contrast that with what life aboard a SDB must be like where you need continuous constant manning 24/7/50 between annual overhaul maintenance cycles when deployed and on patrol for weeks/months at a stretch.

 

[mike wightman]

I used to think that the bridge had to be big enough to control the tonnage sent into jump space.

But then this rule turned up in TCS:

Jump Failure: Ships unable to jump because of critical hits on their power plant,
jump drive, computer, or bridge present a special problem. If the bridge or computer
is out, another ship may be linked to it for jump; the linking ship must have a
computer and bridge as least as large as that of the damaged ship, and linking takes
one week. Both move at the jump rate of the slowest ship and maneuver is impossible
while linked.

 

[Spinward Flow]

But then this rule turned up in TCS

Interesting.
Very interesting indeed!

The implications of such a rule would be that linking (which for our purposes equates to external towing) means that a starship cannot externally tow a singular displacement in excess of that starship's bridge capacity.

So if you have a 1000 ton starship (for example) with a 20 ton bridge, you can link up with and tow (through jump) any other starship that displaces 100-1000 tons because that other starship to be towed would also require 20 tons of bridge. However, a 1200 ton starship to be towed would require 24 tons of bridge displacement in order to tow it, so the 1000 ton jump tug would be inadequate for this purpose UNLESS it had been built with a purposeful "overdesign" of bridge displacement at 24 tons instead of the 20 tons minimum required for a 1000 ton starship.

Additionally, I look at the "maneuver is impossible while linked" clause cited as a "wave off" regarding getting into any meaningful type of external towing rules (probably because the word count would have been prohibitive for the format). I gather that the Jump Failure rule you're citing there has more to do with salvage recovery of warships, which aren't exactly designed for external docking and towing in mind. So rather than dealing with all kinds of center of mass and offset spin stabilization problems with respect to zero-g maneuvering thrust when dealing with a wide variety of hull configuration types, the RAW just does a "la la la la la, I can't hear you!" and says maneuver is impossible.

Which is mildly hilarious, because LBB DA1 Annic Nova does exactly that on a routine basis so there's edge cases to consider.



As a Referee, this is where house rule interpolations of RAW ought to come into play for a more nuanced and textured game simulation experience.

I would rule that it is POSSIBLE to design craft with external load towing expressly in mind ... but such alterations away from baseline are not "free" in terms of cost. The baseline assumption is that the bog standard hull design is NOT structured in such a way as to facilitate external towing (because internal cargo holds exist) and certainly not for "substantial" external loads under "significant" maneuver acceleration and/or jump (meaning: code 1+).

However, it IS POSSIBLE to modify a hull to include such features.
This modification to base hull features is broadly similar to adding streamlining (LBB2) or fuel scoops (LBB5) or a hull configuration (LBB5) or armor (LBB5) as an expense that modifies the baseline MCr0.1 per ton cost of a metal hull.

For my house rule interpolations of RAW on this topic, I borrow from the sub-craft hangar rules as the most appropriate precedent to start from and say that every ton of external load capacity added to a hull will cost MCr0.002 per ton of external capacity. Note that this would be the same cost as an internal hangar space of the same capacity, just to be consistent with precedent.

That then allows for the necessary structural strengthening, docking clamps and airlock interface features, drive tuning modifications needed when docked with external loads ... etc. etc. etc. ... to be accounted for at the design phase inside the naval architect's office. Just like with streamlining and fuel scoops or hull armor factor, such external load capacity features cannot be retrofitted onto a hull design, but must be "built in" from the start for an entire class of craft as a permanent and ubiquitous feature of that class of craft. It has to be part of the blueprints and build specs from the beginning. That kind of external load capacity can't be "bolted on after the fact" to an already existing class design that wasn't built that way with those external towing capacity features in the first place.



The "no retrofits" house rule then rather conveniently complies (in a roundabout way) with the "no maneuver while linked" portion of the TCS rule that you cited.

Craft that have NOT been specifically designed with external load towing in mind in their naval architect plans (spoiler alert: this is ALMOST EVERYTHING in CT!) cannot maneuver when linked to an external load ... hence why the RAW was written the way it was.

Conversely, craft that HAVE been specifically designed with external load towing in mind in their naval architect plans CAN maneuver when linked to an external load that has ALSO been specifically designed with external load towing capacity in mind. So BOTH craft require this feature be included in their class design to make it work.

This is why for my SIE Clipper design posted here in The Fleet forum, the starship itself and all sub-craft associated with it include external load docking and towing as a standard feature in their design specs.

• Starship: 697 tons of external load capacity
• Fighter: 175 tons of external load capacity
• Modules: 72 tons of external load capacity

This then provides the necessary structural bracing hardpoints on hull exteriors for external docking and towing through both maneuver and jump. Rather than requiring a complex (week long) jury rigged "linking" process for salvage operations like what is described in TCS ... instead you're looking at Ordinary Launch Facilities launch and recovery procedures that basically amounts to a "1 per combat turn" launch and recovery rate (which is a lot faster than 1 week of ad hoc engineering).

All of that external load capacity "adds up" in additional costs to the basic designs for starship, fighter and modules, so their hulls "cost more" than is normal/nominal ... but in exchange for that additional build (and annual maintenance) cost, you build in a tremendous amount of flexibility and a capability that can easily "pay for itself" many times over, depending on use cases. So by "paying a little more" you get a LOT MORE value out of the additional capabilities.

 

[Condottiere]

It depends on the edition.

I'd say it makes calculating jump more finicky, so higher likelihood for misjumps, rather than disallowing it.

 

[whartung]

So in this example demonstration case I'm building here, the crew complement ought to be 24 for an 1100 ton ship armed with 10 mixed turrets ... not a mere 11 crew.

It's a fair point, and a good way to look at it.

Consider the "minimum crew" concept for a larger ship (4000 tons in this case), and the "23 Misc. Crew" I came up with.

This ship is unarmed. With or without turrets, it, in theory, needs all of these people to run the ship. The gunnery section is pretty much a bolt on to the ships complement.

That brings up another point.

Some of the requirements are size based (10 per 1000 tons, 1 gunner per turret), others are population based. (Command, Medics, stewards and wait staff for passenger ships).

I don't know enough about military commands. How many officers to enlisted, how compartmentalized they are (gunnery command staff vs general command staff). If you have 100 deck apes doing manual tasks, how many ratings and Petty Officers do they need.

There's always the "no more than 3 reports" rule of thumb for the Marines. 4 men on a fire team, 3:1 team leader. 3 Teams to a squad 3:1 squad leader. 3 squads to a platoon. 3:1 platoon leaders, etc. etc. (I have not idea if thats accurate or not). But the Marines operate in a different world than Navy or commercial personnel.

Anyway, I can see it being useful how some staff are based on raw requirements (10 per 1000 tons), but other are based on the overall staff itself.

 

[TamsinP]

For my house rule interpolations of RAW on this topic, I borrow from the sub-craft hangar rules as the most appropriate precedent to start from and say that every ton of external load capacity added to a hull will cost MCr0.002 per ton of external capacity. Note that this would be the same cost as an internal hangar space of the same capacity, just to be consistent with precedent.

That then allows for the necessary structural strengthening, docking clamps and airlock interface features, drive tuning modifications needed when docked with external loads ... etc. etc. etc. ... to be accounted for at the design phase inside the naval architect's office. Just like with streamlining and fuel scoops or hull armor factor, such external load capacity features cannot be retrofitted onto a hull design, but must be "built in" from the start for an entire class of craft as a permanent and ubiquitous feature of that class of craft. It has to be part of the blueprints and build specs from the beginning. That kind of external load capacity can't be "bolted on after the fact" to an already existing class design that wasn't built that way with those external towing capacity features in the first place.

Looking at MgT2e, in the High Guard 2022 update (I don't have the original, but guess it was there) external cargo mounts can be added to ships at Cr 1000/ton, provided the hull isn't streamlined or dispersed. They render the ship non-streamlined and have explosive bolts allowing selective jettisoning of cargo.

An issue which does get thrown up by external cargo mounts is that they effectively limit the ship to systems with high-ports, Atmos=0 or with a fleet of shuttles for cargo transfer.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Some of the requirements are size based (10 per 1000 tons, 1 gunner per turret), others are population based. (Command, Medics, stewards and wait staff for passenger ships).

And some are systems-based (engineers).

Which makes the rule for applying the crew rules by ship tonnage a bit... uneven. That might be why LBB2 left the transition point vague.

 

[Grav_Moped]

LBB2(81) "Extremely large starships should have at least 10 crew members for each 1000 tons of mass misplacement."

Note - no definition of what constitutes an an extremely large starship.

LBB5(80) - "If the ship is 1,000 tons or under, then the rules stated in Book 2 should be followed. For ships over 1,000 tons, the rules given below govern."

Edge case: 1000Td with only one mandatory crew position. It's entirely HG compliant, and only non-LBB2-compliant because LBB2 doesn't do drop tanks.

It's an unarmed tanker that's almost entirely drop tanks. 199Td core hull with drives, bridge, computer, and stateroom, and the rest hanging off of it.

 

[bookwyrm]

Weapon systems tuning and maintenance, training drills (to keep skills and reflexes honed and sharpened) along with other weapons related miscellany. The gunnery crew is also probably tasked with security aboard while in jump (especially if there are passengers embarked), plus whatever odd jobs and "step and fetch" work needs to be done in support of other departments. With "nothing to shoot at" in jump space, the gunnery crew effectively becomes an additional set of hands (somewhat literally) that can help out where needed with other departments during the "down time" of jump space transits.

Also, really nice follow through on the watch rotations angle of crew manning.
For small time tramp trade ships, particularly those that don't spend a lot of time in space aside from transits between starport and jump point hauling cargoes and passengers, worrying about multiple crews in order to set up watch rotations is something of a luxury. Contrast that with what life aboard a SDB must be like where you need continuous constant manning 24/7/50 between annual overhaul maintenance cycles when deployed and on patrol for weeks/months at a stretch.

Well, I one time decided to work up a 200 dTon SDB for patrolling a system of a Hi Pop main world and realized that a small ship crew wouldn't work. So I decided to give it a big ship crew to cover 4 six hour shifts (2 shifts manning 2 shifts each). Going the other way with ships over 1000 dTons that are going from the Starport to Jump to Starport would use small ship crew numbers for the necessary positions but big ship crew for crew/deck hand positions (it is a bigger ship after all...).

Basically, I was thinking crew size should be a function of Ship Mission first and ship size second instead of based on 100 - 1000 and 1001+ only. (I am using the crew requirements in T20) Considering that this is not RAW and therefore a House Rule... but it ended up making more sense to me and made crewing ships a lot more easier. The other split I noticed is that the Large Ship Crew requirements fit military type ships and ships spending most of their time in normal space vs Small Ship Crew requirements fit any type of ship spending most of their time in jump space. And I realize that there are ships & missions that have special considerations for crew requirements, so these should be considered on case by case.

 

[infojunky]

Well, I one time decided to work up a 200 dTon SDB for patrolling a system of a Hi Pop main world and realized that a small ship crew wouldn't work. So I decided to give it a big ship crew to cover 4 six hour shifts (2 shifts manning 2 shifts each). Going the other way with ships over 1000 dTons that are going from the Starport to Jump to Starport would use small ship crew numbers for the necessary positions but big ship crew for crew/deck hand positions (it is a bigger ship after all...).

Basically, I was thinking crew size should be a function of Ship Mission first and ship size second instead of based on 100 - 1000 and 1001+ only. (I am using the crew requirements in T20) Considering that this is not RAW and therefore a House Rule... but it ended up making more sense to me and made crewing ships a lot more easier. The other split I noticed is that the Large Ship Crew requirements fit military type ships and ships spending most of their time in normal space vs Small Ship Crew requirements fit any type of ship spending most of their time in jump space. And I realize that there are ships & missions that have special considerations for crew requirements, so these should be considered on case by case.

Heh, I trend towards using FullThrust's crew numbers, roughly Military are 1 per 10 tons, while Civilian crews are 0.4 per 10 tons....

 

[Spinward Flow]

Looking at MgT2e, in the High Guard 2022 update (I don't have the original, but guess it was there) external cargo mounts can be added to ships at Cr 1000/ton

That's the same price as external demountable fuel tanks in LBB A5 Trillion Credit Squadron, which are Cr1000 per ton.
External demountable tanks are so cheap (1/100th the cost of ship hull per ton) because the demountable fuel tanks are not built to the same protection standard. If there's a fuel hit, ALL of the external tanks go >POOF!< in a single hit ... as opposed to the 1%/10 tons minimum rule for internal fuel tanks (which are presumably self sealing).

External demountable tanks are basically "fragile eggshells" that cost Cr1000 per ton.
Hull metal is basically "solid bulkheads" enclosing a volume at a cost of Cr100,000 per ton.

 

[kilemall]

I always figured the bridge tonnage of 20% of the Type S and 10% of the Type A afforded a lot of automation making the smaller ships more feasible.

A lot of standing bridge watch by nonpilots in jump, and more supporting the Steward. The navigator is the key person likely doing both, not sure we want that engineer mingling.

 

[TamsinP]

That's the same price as external demountable fuel tanks in LBB A5 Trillion Credit Squadron, which are Cr1000 per ton.
External demountable tanks are so cheap (1/100th the cost of ship hull per ton) because the demountable fuel tanks are not built to the same protection standard. If there's a fuel hit, ALL of the external tanks go >POOF!< in a single hit ... as opposed to the 1%/10 tons minimum rule for internal fuel tanks (which are presumably self sealing).

External demountable tanks are basically "fragile eggshells" that cost Cr1000 per ton.
Hull metal is basically "solid bulkheads" enclosing a volume at a cost of Cr100,000 per ton.

That was the cost for the mounts, not the cargo - note, my response was to your comment using the cost for small craft stowage. The cargo containers themselves could be built to whatever strength you want.

 

[TamsinP]

Well, I one time decided to work up a 200 dTon SDB for patrolling a system of a Hi Pop main world and realized that a small ship crew wouldn't work. So I decided to give it a big ship crew to cover 4 six hour shifts (2 shifts manning 2 shifts each). Going the other way with ships over 1000 dTons that are going from the Starport to Jump to Starport would use small ship crew numbers for the necessary positions but big ship crew for crew/deck hand positions (it is a bigger ship after all...).

Basically, I was thinking crew size should be a function of Ship Mission first and ship size second instead of based on 100 - 1000 and 1001+ only. (I am using the crew requirements in T20) Considering that this is not RAW and therefore a House Rule... but it ended up making more sense to me and made crewing ships a lot more easier. The other split I noticed is that the Large Ship Crew requirements fit military type ships and ships spending most of their time in normal space vs Small Ship Crew requirements fit any type of ship spending most of their time in jump space. And I realize that there are ships & missions that have special considerations for crew requirements, so these should be considered on case by case.

If you look at current merchant ship crews, there is a minimum crewing defined by the SOLAS regulations which depends on the size of the vessel for the deck department and on the power output of the main engines for the engineering department. Crewing beyond those minimum levels will then depend on the ship's "mission" - larger ships will generally have additional deck officers, deck ratings and engineering ratings. Large container ships able to carry lots of refrigerated containers will usually have specialist electro-technical officers added to the engineers. Tankers will have additional deck ratings to assist with firefighting/chemical spillages. Cruise liners and other passenger vessels tend to double up on the navigation watch (2 officers and 2 ratings rather than one of each), the engineering department is enlarged with additional maintenance sections, and the stewards department is massive; in the deck department you will usually find that in addition to the Captain there will be several other officers who hold Master certificates - the Staff Captain, the two Chief Officers (usually titled as Navigator and Safety Officer) and some of the senior 2nd Officers.

If a 24,000 TEU container ship went with the minimum required crew, it would be the same numbers as for a 300 TEU ship - master, chief mate, 2nd mate, 3rd mate, 3 x deck rating, chief engineer, 2nd engineer, 3rd engineer, 4th engineer, 3 x engine rating, cook. In reality, most will have at least one more deck officer, 2-3 more deck ratings, an ETO, 2-3 more engine ratings, and a stewards' assistant. They may also have deck, engine and ETO cadets on board.

Clearly that doesn't fit with the crew requirements for CT. MgT2e tries to go to a midpoint between LBB2 and LBB5 crewing, with a base crew similar to LBB2 but with percentage reductions based on size of ship for larger vessels.

And then there is the issue of salaries. IMHO, these should be based on rank rather than task. One way to do that would be to take the ranks in LBB7 and the pay rates in LBB4 as a base (although I'd move the overlap of officer ranks and enlisted ranks down a couple of places so that O1 = E6 or E7 and take the salary as weekly rather than monthly). For LBB7, the rank tables need some adjustment:
Engineering - change rank O4 to 1st Engineer and delete Admin-1 from requirement; add rank O5 Chief Engineer with Engineer-3 and Admin-1 as requirements
Administration Department - extend to rank O5 Regional Manager, Liaison-3 as requirement
Sales Department - change requirement for Rank O4 to add "or Trader-4"; add Rank 05 Principal Broker, Broker-4 as requirement


In our current reality, Chief Engineers are the same rank (4 bands) as Masters and earn roughly the same; similarly for the other engineering and deck officers (2nd Engineer earns about the same as Chief Officer; 3rd Engineer as 2nd Officer, 4th Engineer as 3rd Officer). On cargo ships, the staff in the Steward's Department are all ratings; on passenger ships where the department is much larger there will be officers as well, on similar rates to the equivalent engineering and deck ranks.

On passenger ships you also have the "civilian" crew - entertainers, shop workers, photographers, gym and spa staff, etc. plus their managers. The senior manager of the "hotel" department may be earning about the same as a Chief Officer or Staff Captain.

 

[whartung]

So I decided to give it a big ship crew to cover 4 six hour shifts (2 shifts manning 2 shifts each).

So, just what areas are you patrolling and what positions do you have on rotation?

I ask simply because "space is big", and odds are really high that "response times" are going to be measured in hours. Beyond getting the ship pointed in roughly the right direction and pushing the "turbo" button, there's ample opportunity to wake the crew before things actually start getting interesting.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I ask simply because "space is big", and odds are really high that "response times" are going to be measured in hours. Beyond getting the ship pointed in roughly the right direction and pushing the "turbo" button, there's ample opportunity to wake the crew before things actually start getting interesting.

Granted.
Under most nominal circumstances, there is going to be ample time to sound General Quarters and put the entire crew on duty in preparation for ship to ship combat.

That's not the issue.

For all of the NON-combat stretches of duty while on patrol, you can't have a single crew shift that's on duty for 8 hours out of every 24 (for example).

Bare minimum, you need 2 crew shifts per 24 hours ... and ideally speaking for really long endurance mission patrols you want to have 3-4 crew shifts per 24 hours, not just 2. How you slice that wedding cake can vary from ship to ship (and crew to crew, depending on the mission) ... but no matter how you slice it, single crew allocations like what LBB2 details for merchant starships can potentially create readiness problems if missions or patrols extend for too long of a duration when a standing watch is required at all times (for situational awareness and safety, if nothing else).

 

[TamsinP]

Granted.
Under most nominal circumstances, there is going to be ample time to sound General Quarters and put the entire crew on duty in preparation for ship to ship combat.

That's not the issue.

For all of the NON-combat stretches of duty while on patrol, you can't have a single crew shift that's on duty for 8 hours out of every 24 (for example).

Bare minimum, you need 2 crew shifts per 24 hours ... and ideally speaking for really long endurance mission patrols you want to have 3-4 crew shifts per 24 hours, not just 2. How you slice that wedding cake can vary from ship to ship (and crew to crew, depending on the mission) ... but no matter how you slice it, single crew allocations like what LBB2 details for merchant starships can potentially create readiness problems if missions or patrols extend for too long of a duration when a standing watch is required at all times (for situational awareness and safety, if nothing else).

When I was in the Territorial Army (Royal Signals), on exercise we did 4-on/4-off shifts in the radio trucks with 4 people on duty to cover 3 positions. Security was covered by the drivers. That shift pattern was mostly due to the fact that our squadron was under-strength - if we'd been full-strength it would have been 4-on/8-off but with 2 hours in the off periods to add to the security.

Going back to my previous comment about current merchant ship duty shifts, three shifts working 4-on/8-off would be what I'd expect for deck and engineering roles on a military ship.

 

[infojunky]

In our current reality, Chief Engineers are the same rank (4 bands) as Masters and earn roughly the same; similarly for the other engineering and deck officers (2nd Engineer earns about the same as Chief Officer; 3rd Engineer as 2nd Officer, 4th Engineer as 3rd Officer). On cargo ships, the staff in the Steward's Department are all ratings; on passenger ships where the department is much larger there will be officers as well, on similar rates to the equivalent engineering and deck ranks.

Note from personal experience the size and frequency of watches total depends on the type and size of vessel. Most Cargo vessels will have a Non watch standing Captain with the a Masters license, The Numbered Officers/Mates generally descend from the Captain, the 1st Mate/Officer will generally also hold a Masters license (Note wether tis is a restricted or not really depends on the size of the Vessel) the 2nd, 3rd etc.. Will have the their their quals as well, generally they will be working on their hours for a Masters Cert. But the Numbering system also denotes which watches they stand on a regular basis. As for a watch bigger vessels will generally have an Officer and a rated seaman as the navigational watch. Note that in times with low visability, tight maneuvering room Etc. etc.. more deck hands will be deployed as lookouts and the like. Also note when carrying Passengers often there will be Life Buoy watches stood for passenger safety alongside Service personnel in charge of the passengers. Engineering watches will be stood as needed by the plant installation.

To be clear Deck/Navigation can and does operate with a bare minimum of one person per watch, providing both navigational and vessel monitoring in the form of the master Alarm panel. Though note often this level of staffing is for relatively small vessels. (Generally under 100 tons, weirdly in Traveller terms 400 dTons or less, kinda). Note the only rated officer in these case would have a Restricted Master's License.

Now Military ships are a whole 'other ball of wax. The navigational watch will be the Conning Officer plus the helm, three topside lookouts, the Ops Board repeater, the BMOW, runner plus one or two Life Buoys . With both the Captain and/or Navigator and his associated ratings hanging about to supplement the watch. Now couple that with with the Operations watches below monitoring comms, sensors. And the engineering watches.

Note like the minimal crew like I mentioned above in a Military setting would be double that at least. Often with either a low ranking officer or Petty Officer as commander. (Hint, I often in my time in service was the PO in Charge of the Craft, (Frequently even when a Jr. Officer was aboard... I.e. her could tell me where to go, but not how to go about getting there))

 

[TamsinP]

Note from personal experience the size and frequency of watches total depends on the type and size of vessel. Most Cargo vessels will have a Non watch standing Captain with the a Masters license, The Numbered Officers/Mates generally descend from the Captain, the 1st Mate/Officer will generally also hold a Masters license (Note wether tis is a restricted or not really depends on the size of the Vessel) the 2nd, 3rd etc.. Will have the their their quals as well, generally they will be working on their hours for a Masters Cert. But the Numbering system also denotes which watches they stand on a regular basis. As for a watch bigger vessels will generally have an Officer and a rated seaman as the navigational watch. Note that in times with low visability, tight maneuvering room Etc. etc.. more deck hands will be deployed as lookouts and the like. Also note when carrying Passengers often there will be Life Buoy watches stood for passenger safety alongside Service personnel in charge of the passengers. Engineering watches will be stood as needed by the plant installation.

To be clear Deck/Navigation can and does operate with a bare minimum of one person per watch, providing both navigational and vessel monitoring in the form of the master Alarm panel. Though note often this level of staffing is for relatively small vessels. (Generally under 100 tons, weirdly in Traveller terms 400 dTons or less, kinda). Note the only rated officer in these case would have a Restricted Master's License.

Now Military ships are a whole 'other ball of wax. The navigational watch will be the Conning Officer plus the helm, three topside lookouts, the Ops Board repeater, the BMOW, runner plus one or two Life Buoys . With both the Captain and/or Navigator and his associated ratings hanging about to supplement the watch. Now couple that with with the Operations watches below monitoring comms, sensors. And the engineering watches.

Note like the minimal crew like I mentioned above in a Military setting would be double that at least. Often with either a low ranking officer or Petty Officer as commander. (Hint, I often in my time in service was the PO in Charge of the Craft, (Frequently even when a Jr. Officer was aboard... I.e. her could tell me where to go, but not how to go about getting there))

In my original tract about minimum crewing, I mentioned that a 24,000 TEU container ship would have the same minimum crew as a 300 TEU ship - a 300 TEU ship is around 3000 GT which works out as about 800 dTons (and that is the SOLAS break point for the highest minimum crew level).

Smaller ships can have smaller crews - ships between 500 and 3000 GT (about 140 to 800 dTons) can have one less mate/officer; ships between 100 and 500 GT (30-140 dTons) only need master, chief mate and 2 navigation watch ratings. If the ship is only doing short coastal trips they can have less. As far as I can tell, vessels under 100 GT don't have any defined minimum crewing levels.

It's certainly true that officers/mates often hold a higher certificate than they need for the position they currently hold and will be working towards the next one, putting in the sea hours and studying when off-shift.

About 70% of ships in the 100-500 GT range are tugs or fishing boats. The rest would be small coasters, so I'd consider them as in-system vessels rather than starships (ie mostly as small craft).

 

[infojunky]

About 70% of ships in the 100-500 GT range are tugs or fishing boats. The rest would be small coasters, so I'd consider them as in-system vessels rather than starships (ie mostly as small craft).

Actually this probably covers a lot of the bottom end of Adventure Size Class as well.

But you are right smaller, lower endurance vessels is probably the scope.