Capital Ship Crew-sizes... something got left out

[Nerhesi]

Hey Matt,

It seems we forgot to include the high-guard (MGT1 and prior) rules for capital ship crews which is massively inflating crew sizes. Is there a way we can standardize all this as to avoid this huge inflation? Here are the relevant deltas:

Command:
5 per 10,000 tons of ship approximately but 10 minimum. Only they get a full stateroom. This includes your pilots, captain, XO, astrogation, other officers, etc

Engineering:
1 per 100 tons of drives (instead of 1 per 35)
Gunnery:
Turrets are 1 per BARRAGE (instead of 1 per turret - that is the biggest inflation)
Service:
3 per 1000 tons if ship has no troops. 2 per 1000 tons if it does have troops. This replaces both Admin & Maintenance

The alternative option is to indicate that Most military ships (usually above 2,000 tons) employ centralized systems and control areas, thereby requiring only 1/3rd of the listed crew. This seems to solve the issue.

 

[phavoc]

Are there plans for working up revised crew requirements for larger merchants? I could see a reduced need for command and service, and even engineering, as these types of ships only do basic maintenance and servicing in transit. Any real maintenance work would be done in port.

 

[Nerhesi]

Perhaps we just add a 3rd coloumn for that table? Label it as "any ship with a Command bridge" if we want a "tangible" method of indicating when those reduced crew requirements kick in?

 

[AndrewW]

Perhaps we just add a 3rd coloumn for that table? Label it as "any ship with a Command bridge" if we want a "tangible" method of indicating when those reduced crew requirements kick in?

Command bridge is mostly used on some warships, but in no way restricted there. But even larger merchants wouldn't normally have one, not to mention all large warships wouldn't either.

 

[Nerhesi]

Perhaps we just add a 3rd coloumn for that table? Label it as "any ship with a Command bridge" if we want a "tangible" method of indicating when those reduced crew requirements kick in?

Command bridge is mostly used on some warships, but in no way restricted there. But even larger merchants wouldn't normally have one, not to mention all large warships wouldn't either.

Good point Andrew. So we have three methods to address this:

a) Fluff it - by saying that generally, larger ships have more centralized systems and processes, thereby the crew requirements for such ships is usually 1/3rd that of normal. This generally applies to larger craft (2000+ tons) of TL10+ but is not limited to such.

Or

b) Add a ship component that has X dtons, X Mcr cost, which basically denotes some centralized control area or areas - that results in 1/3rd crew requirements.

Or

c) Add a 3rd Coloumn with actual "math" describing the fluff that is (a) - basically, the coloumn form High Guard in MGT1.

 

[Condottiere]

You can note down the minimums, than note penalties below that number, then note bonuses above that number.

 

[Nerhesi]

You can note down the minimums, than note penalties below that number, then note bonuses above that number.

That could be an option, then we need to adjust the minimums by 3x or so (downward).

 

[phavoc]

If you model civilian crews like the real world, a very small crew can run a very large ship. Any ship needs a minimal bridge watch when in jump space. Engineers are lubing and cleaning and doing minor maintenance. Everyone else is doing minor maintenance or just waiting for their watch to come up.

So there could be a sliding scale, with 30 or so for ships of 3-10,000, 40 for 10-50, and say a maximum of 50 for ships greater than 10,000 tons.

That is predicated upon the ship itself not needing additional crew. A cargo ship that has it's own shuttles would need additional flight and flight support crew. A ship that transports specialized cargo might need additional crew. A tanker might have extra crew to do the external refueling hookups. But the standard cargo or bulk carrier crew never needs to do anything with their cargo, so they just have to keep the lights on between delivery points.

Ships that big making real-space runs would just have a larger bridge watch crew. But in jumpspace you ain't going anywhere, so a single, or even two people is enough for each watch period.

 

[Nerhesi]

That would technically make more sense - but then Phavoc, are we going to run into the scenario where we have just 1 gunner running all offensive stations? We wouldn't to eliminate the fun of having multiple gunners and so on. I think it's a careful balance - I know my players enjoy having 3 gunners, 1 pilot, 1 engineer, and 1 sensors 'dude' - and that is on a small ship with 3-5 turrets/barbettes. I dont mind having the pilot shoot a fixed weapon. But we gotta becareful of that slippery toward 3 guys running the dreadnought

 

[phavoc]

That would technically make more sense - but then Phavoc, are we going to run into the scenario where we have just 1 gunner running all offensive stations? We wouldn't to eliminate the fun of having multiple gunners and so on. I think it's a careful balance - I know my players enjoy having 3 gunners, 1 pilot, 1 engineer, and 1 sensors 'dude' - and that is on a small ship with 3-5 turrets/barbettes. I dont mind having the pilot shoot a fixed weapon. But we gotta becareful of that slippery toward 3 guys running the dreadnought

Small ships crewing is gonna be different. And you could use expert gunnery programs for your turrets.

Its going to be different for PC crewed ships. My suggestion was for large NPC crewed freighters only.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Well, we already have the facility to run small ships on a skeleton crew.

As for large ships...

I like the reducing by a third rule, but only on certain vessels (I am thinking the equivalent of a container or tanker ship). Warships _would_ have more centralised systems, but they are also not going to skimp the number of crew watches which will just bring the number right back up again. I am thinking most military ships (in 3I at least) are going to look more US Navy style, cramming in as many crewman as they can (seriously, look at the crew numbers of WWII-era US warships compared to those of other nations, they just loved to pack them sailors in - not sure if that still applies to modern fleets...).

 

[phavoc]

Well, we already have the facility to run small ships on a skeleton crew.

As for large ships...

I like the reducing by a third rule, but only on certain vessels (I am thinking the equivalent of a container or tanker ship). Warships _would_ have more centralised systems, but they are also not going to skimp the number of crew watches which will just bring the number right back up again. I am thinking most military ships (in 3I at least) are going to look more US Navy style, cramming in as many crewman as they can (seriously, look at the crew numbers of WWII-era US warships compared to those of other nations, they just loved to pack them sailors in - not sure if that still applies to modern fleets...).

Automation and repair bots will make a big difference for crewing on military vessels. The question is also, too FEW crew means crew hits can be catastrophic because you have no additional crews to man weapon stations, engineering or bridge crew.

WW2 sized crews may be too much because so much work had to be done manually. Today modern ships have a much lower crew/tonnage ratio. The new LCS ships have absurdly low crew levels for their missions, so they have no flexibility when it comes to crew losses. Warships expected to be cruising for months would not necessarily have that luxury. So a balance would need to be struck between competing concepts.

But Merchies? Yeah, they are gonna be run on skeleton crews because they are all about the $$$. You need 1, maybe 2 pilots, 1 navigator (maybe someone cross-trained, but these guys in big ships are flying pretty standard routes, so they won't be going somewhere they haven't been before all that often), 10-12 engineers, some able spacemen. So yeah, I think the 30-50 crew would be proper for ships 10k to 100k.

 

[Condottiere]

Annual maintenance costs are increased and are sooner than annual, with below minimum crew levels.

Onboard crew may become fatigued and snappish; may unionize on a one in six chance.

 

[phavoc]

Annual maintenance costs are increased and are sooner than annual, with below minimum crew levels.

Onboard crew may become fatigued and snappish; may unionize on a one in six chance.

They'll just get outsourced to non-union worlds.