HG 2e Crew questions

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:00 pm

Hello Old School and phavoc,
Old School wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:38 pm
phavoc wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:36 am
Old School wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:34 am
The sensor operator never made much sense. What the heck do you do with a 60 ton bridge other than put more sensor operators snd perhaps remote gunner stations there? You can only have so many pilots, navigators, and comm operators. I I house ruled that for every 10 tons of bridge, there is one extra seat for a sensor or comm operator. The idea that with a 40, 60, or 80 dton bridge you still needed to dedicate more space to a sensorOp station never jived for me. 10 dtons is a LOT of space in crew workstation terms, but it works well enough.

Another item not well explained is the benefit of multiple sensor systems. Other than redundancy for damage, I don’t think the RAW provides an advantage. It makes sense that each sensor suite is limited in the number operations it can perform or the number of operators, but this isn’t accounted for in RAW that I’m aware of. I suppose multiple packages would allow for multiple EW attacks on a single salvo? Perhaps, but not according to the rules.
A warship of any size will not have a massive bridge operation. It would split up the functionality among various control spaces. Since warships expect to take damage and continue fighting it just makes more sense to share those functions with other stations and have the bridge be the command nexus for the ship. A fair-sized warship would have a bridge, an aux-bridge, a fire-control section, an EW section, engineering control, damage control, etc. Each one able to communicate to the command spaces on the ship.

Also, the bridge size, even for small ships, isn't all in one room. It's supposed to encompass sensors, computer, and other various command and electronic systems rather than be in one total room.
What you write makes sense, but it does require ignoring (again) years of ship plans, which all show one bridge as one large room with lots of stations and absurd amounts of open space.
During discussions about the bridge on Citizens of the Imperium the volume includes an airlock and part of the passageway. The only item or items shown on must deck plans is one or more acceleration couches. The couches normally take up one square. With multiple couches there is usually a space of one square between them. What is rarely drawn in is the consoles that surround the couches.

In BattleStar Galactica the bridge is crammed full of consoles and couches with narrow aisles while in Star Trek the Enterprise bridge is spacious in contrast.

T4 Naval Architect's Manual is a decent source to get inspiration on the layout of the bridge and other compartments onboard a ship.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
Old School
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Old School » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:01 am

Thanks for the recommendation. Can’t say I have any T4 stuff.
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:46 am

Hello Old School,
Old School wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:01 am
Thanks for the recommendation. Can’t say I have any T4 stuff.
My Traveller collection covers CT, MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, MgT, and the basic three books by the German publisher I think is 13Mann. Most of the versions I have a majority of the original books with PDFs. CT I did pick-up the complete FFE softcover set.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:22 am

snrdg121408 wrote: To someone that has experience serving aboard a ship at sea anyone that does not operate, maintain, or repair any of the ships equipment is not crew.
Even the US Navy does not appear to be very dogmatic about this, at least colloquially:
Shipboard Careers
Specialty careers aboard ships vary greatly depending upon the ship. Similar to cities at sea, 5,000-crew carriers offer a variety of jobs, including:
Pilots
• Air traffic controllers
• Nuclear engineers
• Network engineers
...
https://www.navy.com/life-in-the-navy/life-on-a-ship


General Characteristics, Nimitz class
...
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,000-3,200, air wing: 1,500, other: 500
...
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_disp ... d=200&ct=4



The Traveller definition of crew includes everyone serving aboard, in line with standard colloquial use.
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:57 pm

Morning from the Pacific Northwest AnotherDilbert,
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:22 am
snrdg121408 wrote: To someone that has experience serving aboard a ship at sea anyone that does not operate, maintain, or repair any of the ships equipment is not crew.
Even the US Navy does not appear to be very dogmatic about this, at least colloquially:
Shipboard Careers
Specialty careers aboard ships vary greatly depending upon the ship. Similar to cities at sea, 5,000-crew carriers offer a variety of jobs, including:
Pilots
• Air traffic controllers
• Nuclear engineers
• Network engineers
...
https://www.navy.com/life-in-the-navy/life-on-a-ship


General Characteristics, Nimitz class
...
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,000-3,200, air wing: 1,500, other: 500
...
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_disp ... d=200&ct=4



The Traveller definition of crew includes everyone serving aboard, in line with standard colloquial use.
Yes, the USN publishes material for the consumption of the public which uses "colloquial" definitions that are not used when training sailors and officers. To be crew the service record has the date the sailor reports onboard, all of the shipboard qualifications, awards, and the date the individual leaves the ship for another ship or duty station. The pilots, Marines, and others that are deployed onboard for a cruise do not have to qualify or stand any of the ship's watches and are not noted as being ship's crew in official documents.

An earlier Traveller definition mentioned that crew included everyone working onboard. What is the difference between working and serving?

Another impasse has occurred based on actual experience versus material gleaned from written documentation.

Per the MgT crew requirements that there be either 1 dedicated medic or a crew member with medic skill is required per 120 bodies for both commercial and military hulls. A ship carrying a crew of 60 does not require any medics or any number of personnel qualified as a medic. Personally, I would have one of the crew with cross-training as a medic. When carrying 120 passengers the table requirement, as I read it, there should be 1 medic assigned to take care of the passengers.

The same ship transports 120 Marines . Is the medic ship's crew or is the medic assigned to the Marines? If the medic is crew does the medic deploy with the Marines?

When the ship is not transporting passengers/Marines does the 60 crew still have a medic?
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
Geir
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm
Contact:

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Geir » Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:07 pm

Cold raining morning here in the Northwest.
Two points:
One, I do think that "people on the ship" rather than any more technical definition is what the creators have in mind for crew, especially with regard to medics. If not, the air crew, marines, whatever, need to add medics into their mix, so it doesn't change the numbers any.

Two, crew size is "really more of a guideline than a rule". After all, the text also says a small number of multi-skilled people can run a ship of 1,000 tons and when you get to the magic size of 5,000 tons you can cut the whole crew in thirds. Since the rules don't get into specific negative DMs for undercrewing (is that word?), you can just do what you think is best.

I can think of a bunch of rules to add for crew levels (some are in the back of the Traveller Companion with regard to automation) and virtual crews (can you really only replace pilots, gunners and sensor operators?? not engineers - even with repair drones, maintenance or admins or medics- even with autodocs?)), plus rules for morale/fatigue DMs based on double vs single staterooms, inadequate common space, added biospheres, or game space (that cost is so far off base that I ignore it and call it common space). But, those are more rules to juggle. If you think of ship design as a game (guilty!) then additions like these would be fun, but only in certain campaigns would they be useful (though the same can be said for every rule, really).
Geir Lanesskog
www.geir.org
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7962
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:56 pm

The regular crew has watches.

Image
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:58 pm

Howdy Geir,
Geir wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:07 pm
Cold raining morning here in the Northwest.
Two points:
One, I do think that "people on the ship" rather than any more technical definition is what the creators have in mind for crew, especially with regard to medics. If not, the air crew, marines, whatever, need to add medics into their mix, so it doesn't change the numbers any.
One pilot is the only person required to be on a ship. One Astrogator is only recommended on hulls that have a jump drive. One or more engineers is suggested for every 35 tons of drives and power plant.

A ship with a crew of 120 is recommended to have 1 dedicated medic which makes the crew 121 total. Add another 120 passengers/Marines a second medic is recommended. If there is less than 120 in either category then the recommendation is is 1 medic.
Two, crew size is "really more of a guideline than a rule". After all, the text also says a small number of multi-skilled people can run a ship of 1,000 tons and when you get to the magic size of 5,000 tons you can cut the whole crew in thirds. Since the rules don't get into specific negative DMs for undercrewing (is that word?), you can just do what you think is best.

I can think of a bunch of rules to add for crew levels (some are in the back of the Traveller Companion with regard to automation) and virtual crews (can you really only replace pilots, gunners and sensor operators?? not engineers - even with repair drones, maintenance or admins or medics- even with autodocs?)), plus rules for morale/fatigue DMs based on double vs single staterooms, inadequate common space, added biospheres, or game space (that cost is so far off base that I ignore it and call it common space). But, those are more rules to juggle. If you think of ship design as a game (guilty!) then additions like these would be fun, but only in certain campaigns would they be useful (though the same can be said for every rule, really).
There is only one required crew per the table and that is the pilot.

The Virtual Crew rule adds the requirement of a computer and an operator that can remotely operate the craft.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:00 pm

Howdy Condottiere,
Condottiere wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:56 pm
The regular crew has watches.

Image
Really funny.

To be more accurate you need someone to be standing on the watch.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7962
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Condottiere » Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:41 am

In terms of engineering, once you reach thirty five tonnes default, you should have an engineer onboard.

If you have a jump drive, it's only activated a round or so before dropping down the rabbit hole, but you need the engineer to both manipulate the dials and check in the meantime that it's functioning properly and there are no possible issues during that short time of operation. How that works out in actual terms of time usage, hard to say.

The power plant is always on, so it more a question on keeping an eye on the readings, and having the engineer on call for deviations from the norm.

More or less the same for manoeuvre drives.

Diagnostic software should routinely be run that stress tests the engines, possibly while docked at a starport, and where you could send the spacecraft to a nearby garage to fix any issues that arise, or maybe that's that annual maintenance.

We can assume that thirty fives tonnes is a sort of minimum, that once you have a critical mass of engineers, you actually only need a third as much, but for full time supervision.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby locarno24 » Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:28 am

Condottiere wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:41 am
In terms of engineering, once you reach thirty five tonnes default, you should have an engineer onboard.
I kind of see it the other way around. You should - if you have a fusion reactor and drives - have an engineer, on the understanding that on a small ship 'engineer' may mean 'one of the crew has done a basic engineering course', but you should have a nominated 'engineer'.

For every 35 dTons of 'engine room', you've got enough work to be someone's 'full time job'. That is, at 36 dTons, you probably have a full-time engineer and an assistant (who's probably part time and may pull double duty as the maintenance crew).
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Ursus Maior
Weasel
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Ursus Maior » Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:44 am

Regarding the sensor operators, one could also borrow from the chapter on Space Stations and use "General Crew" to operate sensors. In fact, I think the crew rewuirements of ships severely lack an entry for general crew that use a profession ("Spacer/Crewmember" from the Companion comes to mind) to do their jobs. Of course, dedicated sensor operators would use "Electronics/Sensors" as their main skill.
liber et infractus
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:53 pm

Early Afternoon Condottiere and locarno24,

My take is that 1 fully trained engineer is required when any combination of power plant, maneuver drive, and jump drive hits 35 tons. For example on the Fessor Engineering is 40 tons which requires 1 engineer and either a fully trained or a crew member cross-trained as a engineer is an option.

Using my own experience Sonar was authorized to have a complement of 12 sonar operators and/or sonar technicians. On all the boats I served on we had 10 bodies which met that we had two watch standers that did not have a Sonar naval enlisted code. The two extra warm bodies usually where either the doc, a.k.a. corpsman/medic, one of the yeoman/personelmen, or supply guys. When we had an undesignated seaman they could try to see if they wanted to strike for sonar.

When at sea the watches could be set up as six 4 hour section, four 6 hour sections, or three 8 hour sections. Sonar usually stood 6 hour watches with one four body section standing 2 watches every day. The 12 hours off was devoted to maintenance, training, relaxing, and sleeping.

Not being trained to run the reactor and related systems I did have some basic training in how their systems worked but not enough to feel comfortable about standing watch all by my little lonesome. However, I did fell confident is doing the Quarter Master's duties, working the ballast control panel, and other forward puke jobs. Okay, cooking and doing the doc's job was probably not something I felt comfortable with either.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:09 pm

Hello Ursus Maior,
Ursus Maior wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:44 am
Regarding the sensor operators, one could also borrow from the chapter on Space Stations and use "General Crew" to operate sensors. In fact, I think the crew rewuirements of ships severely lack an entry for general crew that use a profession ("Spacer/Crewmember" from the Companion comes to mind) to do their jobs. Of course, dedicated sensor operators would use "Electronics/Sensors" as their main skill.
Technically all the bodies that are operating the vessel are "Spacer/Crewmember" with the a number of skills.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7962
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Condottiere » Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:39 am

The default hundred tonne Scoutship is designed to be run by a single crewmember.

Sensor operators have to be mentioned separately, as general crew seems mostly concerned with the maintenance aspect, which I'll assume has to do with the hull integrity, wiring, plumbing, and general janitorial duties, possibly damage control.

Security is supposedly one per kilotonne, though can be superceded by the addition of a Marine contingent.

In theory, the ship's computer should be doing the general sensing, with collision alerts and routine ship identification; specialized sensor operators to investigate anomalies, interrogate unidentified artificial objects, and paint hostile targets. Then you need the guys with binoculars to spot submarines, torpedoes and icebergs.
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:35 am

Hello Condottiere,
Condottiere wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:39 am
The default hundred tonne Scoutship is designed to be run by a single crewmember.
In CT the 100 ton Scout/Courier requires a crew of 1.
In MT, TNE, and T4 the minimum command crew is 2 which is in my opinion where the pilot and astrogator serve as crew.
IIRC T20 and GT fall back on CT rules.
MgT requires a crew of 2 because an astrogator is required when a jump drive is installed. However, one crew member with both skills can indeed handle a 100 ton scout/courier with the caveat that when the crap hits the rotary device there is a very good chance the single crew member is not going to handle complex situations.
Sensor operators have to be mentioned separately, as general crew seems mostly concerned with the maintenance aspect, which I'll assume has to do with the hull integrity, wiring, plumbing, and general janitorial duties, possibly damage control.
Both the ship and space station crew requirements have a specific position titled maintenance.

The space station general crew is for components like the shipyard, refinery, and manufacturing plants.

CT LBB 5 has the service crew that provides the basic services like the barber shop, supply, security (when troops are not onboard), general maintenance, food service, or other operations.
Security is supposedly one per kilotonne, though can be superceded by the addition of a Marine contingent.
CT LBB 5 indicates that ship security is part of the Service Crew and is 1 per 1,000 tons of ship when no troops are present. Ship's Troops can be 3 per 100 to 3 per 1,000 tons hull.
In theory, the ship's computer should be doing the general sensing, with collision alerts and routine ship identification; specialized sensor operators to investigate anomalies, interrogate unidentified artificial objects, and paint hostile targets. Then you need the guys with binoculars to spot submarines, torpedoes and icebergs.
A commercial freighter, tanker, or cruise ship does not have, to my knowledge, the specialized sensor operators to investigate anomalies, interrogate UFOs, or paint targets.

The Honor Harrington series, actually a short story about her midshipman cruise, does agree with your analysis that the ship's computer handles the duties of gathering the sensor data, analyzing, and at a set threshold alerting the watch standers of something that needs attention. At the same time there are sensor operators that are also looking at the data. In the story a sensor operator noted something in the data and began digging minutes before the computer's threshold of detection which hit. Unfortunately, the Officer of the Deck did a maneuver that scared off the bogey.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
Geir
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm
Contact:

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby Geir » Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:37 am

Highguard is kind of all over the place on crew, especially the engineer requirement.
I had read it as 1 per 35 tons of drives, round up, so a scout needs 1 and a close escort, for instance, needs 4, but then along comes the lab ship, which should have 2 but has 1, and the corvette which should have 3 but only has 2, so for them it's round down. For a close escort or a fleet courier, it's round up.
And no small craft seems to ever need an engineer.
Also, the corvette has no maintenance or admin crew members, but a close escort and fleet courier do (all are 400 ton military ships)
Medics don't appear for 100 ton ships but do for 200 ton ships and above (even the lab ship, so it's not about passengers or low berths), so suddenly it is round up, even if the crew is all of 4, including the medic.

It's part let's emulate CT designs, part round it whichever way you please, part ignore the rules.

Crew is fungible all around in my opinion, since, as I mentioned, there are no good rules for crew shortages other than at a tactical level where a character can only do one ship function per round.

It seems the "real" requirement for civilian ships would be whatever the registering body says is required: Licensed pilot, engineer, medic, etc. Hopefully in line with operational considerations, but with government regs, who knows. For instance, a detached duty scout probably only requires a scout and is governed by the IISS, but if you buy a used scout ship and register it commercially, there might be more crew requirements, at least on paper.

In the military, the ideal would be enough for someone to stand every watch at every required station, which could be a lot more than minimum, especially on a small ship (but notice, the corvette doesn't follow the 3 pilot rule either).

It seems the way to handle it is to either to make up some house rules, or wait for MJD to create some new rule in a new publication, or just wing it.

But I think a drawn-out discussion on whether the ship's troops should count against the ship's crew, and whether the medic counts as a part of the troop or the crew is probably not that important, especially if you're looking for a Sixth Millennium answer based on the current US Marine Corps use of Navy corpsmen. To the Far Future, that looks like arguing how many shaman you need per cohort, (definitely 3, except during a solar eclipse, then it's 4 shamans and a rabbi[reformed, not orthodox]) or how many political officers you need on a SEAL team (depends on whether they're Democrats or Republicans - the officer, that is).
Geir Lanesskog
www.geir.org
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby locarno24 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:06 am

snrdg121408 wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:35 am
The Honor Harrington series, actually a short story about her midshipman cruise, does agree with your analysis that the ship's computer handles the duties of gathering the sensor data, analyzing, and at a set threshold alerting the watch standers of something that needs attention. At the same time there are sensor operators that are also looking at the data. In the story a sensor operator noted something in the data and began digging minutes before the computer's threshold of detection which hit. Unfortunately, the Officer of the Deck did a maneuver that scared off the bogey.
Technically that was CIC, rather than just the computer - which hadn't spotted the pirate. There were a bunch of 'real' analysts on the other end of that feed. But in general, yes. The basic contact identification would be done by computer but interpreting it - or looking at raw data - would be where the humans get involved.

One thing radars with a 'detection threshold' tend to throw up a lot of is 'possibles' - persistant anomalies which don't trip the 'THIS IS DEFINITELY AN ENEMY SHIP' alarm but which the computer can't determine with confidence if it's a real ship or something else.

Spotting a drive at full acceleration in the middle of empty space at sub light-second range isn't especially hard, and if your TL12 sensor management software can't do it automatically you probably deserve a refund, but if you've got a ship running silent in/behind some planetary rings, you're going to get a diffuse 'blob' of heat reflected off and refracted through an area of ice and rock kilometres across, and figuring out which if any of those represent the actual heat source (which isn't very warm to begin with and is against the backdrop of a turbulent gas giant, not cold space) is going to require some competent brainpower.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:01 pm

Hello locarno24,
locarno24 wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:06 am
snrdg121408 wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:35 am
The Honor Harrington series, actually a short story about her midshipman cruise, does agree with your analysis that the ship's computer handles the duties of gathering the sensor data, analyzing, and at a set threshold alerting the watch standers of something that needs attention. At the same time there are sensor operators that are also looking at the data. In the story a sensor operator noted something in the data and began digging minutes before the computer's threshold of detection which hit. Unfortunately, the Officer of the Deck did a maneuver that scared off the bogey.
Technically that was CIC, rather than just the computer - which hadn't spotted the pirate. There were a bunch of 'real' analysts on the other end of that feed. But in general, yes. The basic contact identification would be done by computer but interpreting it - or looking at raw data - would be where the humans get involved.

One thing radars with a 'detection threshold' tend to throw up a lot of is 'possibles' - persistant anomalies which don't trip the 'THIS IS DEFINITELY AN ENEMY SHIP' alarm but which the computer can't determine with confidence if it's a real ship or something else.

Spotting a drive at full acceleration in the middle of empty space at sub light-second range isn't especially hard, and if your TL12 sensor management software can't do it automatically you probably deserve a refund, but if you've got a ship running silent in/behind some planetary rings, you're going to get a diffuse 'blob' of heat reflected off and refracted through an area of ice and rock kilometres across, and figuring out which if any of those represent the actual heat source (which isn't very warm to begin with and is against the backdrop of a turbulent gas giant, not cold space) is going to require some competent brainpower.
My take of the event is that the sensor information being analyzed was done using passive systems not an active system like RADAR. Of course I am probably a bit biased since subs tend to use passive systems to detect and track contacts. Yes, the computer did note that there was something that might be there but not with a high enough threshold which is why there where sensor operators looking at the same data.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: HG 2e Crew questions

Postby snrdg121408 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:07 pm

Hi Geir,

First my apologies for not replying earlier, unfortunately when I clicked on the notification link I saw lacarno24's reply and did not check for any earlier posts.
Geir wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:37 am
Highguard is kind of all over the place on crew, especially the engineer requirement.
I had read it as 1 per 35 tons of drives, round up, so a scout needs 1 and a close escort, for instance, needs 4, but then along comes the lab ship, which should have 2 but has 1, and the corvette which should have 3 but only has 2, so for them it's round down. For a close escort or a fleet courier, it's round up.
And no small craft seems to ever need an engineer.
Also, the corvette has no maintenance or admin crew members, but a close escort and fleet courier do (all are 400 ton military ships)
CRB 2e page 5/PDF 6 Rounding: Unless otherwise stated, whenever you are asked to divide in Traveller, always round down."

A small craft hull has a total of power plant of 0.6 tons and a 1 ton MD for at total of 1.6 tons of drives and power plant. Per Crew requirement there is 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant. Dividing 1.6 by 35 returns the result of 0.045714485714. Following the CRB 2e instructions the small craft does not require a dedicated engineer. The scout/courier has a 2 ton MD, a 10 ton JD, and a 4 ton power plant for a total of 16 tons divided by 35 equals 0.457144857143 rounding down means there is no dedicated engineer required.

Using the rounding method of if the decimal fraction is >=0.5 round up and if the decimal fraction is <0.5 drop the decimal fraction. In both examples I used still would not require a dedicated engineer since both numbers are less 0.5.

In CT the scout/courier's minimum crew requirement is 1 the pilot.
Medics don't appear for 100 ton ships but do for 200 ton ships and above (even the lab ship, so it's not about passengers or low berths), so suddenly it is round up, even if the crew is all of 4, including the medic.

It's part let's emulate CT designs, part round it whichever way you please, part ignore the rules.
1. CT LBB 2 1977 page 16 "Medic: Each starship of greater than 100 tons mass displacement requires a medic aboard. Starships carrying more than 120 passengers require 1 medic for each 120 passengers or fraction thereof." The instruction state that 1 medic is required per any fraction of 120 passengers which means to me that a hull carrying 121 passengers requires 2 personnel with medic skills. One person could have primary skill as medic and a secondary skill as steward. The other person could have the primary skill of steward and a secondary skill of medic.

The scout/courier being 100 tons does not require a dedicated medic but a 150 ton hull does. A hull expected to carry passengers requires 1 dedicated medic for the first 120 and additional medics for any number of passengers past the first 120.

2. CT LBB 2 1977/1981 page 16 "Medic: each starship of 200 tons or more must have a medic(medic-1 skill or better). In addition, there must be at least one medic per 120 passengers carried. If there is more than one medic, the most skilled is designated ship's doctor and draws 10% more pay. Non-starships and small craft do not require medics."

One medic is required for hulls >= 200 tons and additional medics are needed per 120 passengers carried. Note that in the revised CT LBB 2 instruction that the wording of "or fraction thereof" was omitted. To me a hull carrying 121 passengers need only 1 medic while 2 medics are required for 240 passengers.

MgT HG 2e page 21/PDF page 22 Commercial 1 per 120 crew and passengers and Military 1 per 120 crew.

I agree that the MgT crew requirements are based on CT. I consider rounding whichever the designer wants to as ignoring the rules.
Crew is fungible all around in my opinion, since, as I mentioned, there are no good rules for crew shortages other than at a tactical level where a character can only do one ship function per round.

It seems the "real" requirement for civilian ships would be whatever the registering body says is required: Licensed pilot, engineer, medic, etc. Hopefully in line with operational considerations, but with government regs, who knows. For instance, a detached duty scout probably only requires a scout and is governed by the IISS, but if you buy a used scout ship and register it commercially, there might be more crew requirements, at least on paper.

In the military, the ideal would be enough for someone to stand every watch at every required station, which could be a lot more than minimum, especially on a small ship (but notice, the corvette doesn't follow the 3 pilot rule either).

It seems the way to handle it is to either to make up some house rules, or wait for MJD to create some new rule in a new publication, or just wing it.

But I think a drawn-out discussion on whether the ship's troops should count against the ship's crew, and whether the medic counts as a part of the troop or the crew is probably not that important, especially if you're looking for a Sixth Millennium answer based on the current US Marine Corps use of Navy corpsmen. To the Far Future, that looks like arguing how many shaman you need per cohort, (definitely 3, except during a solar eclipse, then it's 4 shamans and a rabbi[reformed, not orthodox]) or how many political officers you need on a SEAL team (depends on whether they're Democrats or Republicans - the officer, that is).
You are basically correct that the commercial crew requirements are to some extent variable to the nation flagging the ship. However, the basic requirements are based on international agreements that are taken seriously.

The problem I have with house rules is that they are never covered in the write-up of the design which would be a big help allowing individuals like me from not being able to come up with the same crew count.

CT LBB 5 refers you back to CT LBB 4 for the Ship's Troops organization which does include medical support requirements. CT Striker also has additional requirements.

In creating the TU the authors based their requirements on sources that they had available. CT LBB 5 is to Commander Charles Arthur Miller, USN, Retired which strongly indicates High Guard is based on USN practices.

Thank you all for your comments.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Geir and 3 guests