AndrewW
Emperor Mongoose
Even then, if red alert starts flashing, the battle klaxon goes off or whatever form they might be called back to duty.
Military ships and crew
- Thread starter tytalan
- Start date
“On the Ship (Berthing): For many junior, single sailors (E-4 and below), their ship is their barracks, even when in homeport.
Space is Limited: Expect a small bunk (rack) and a locker; storage for luggage is minimal.
"Rack": A narrow bunk, often with a top or bottom option, offering limited privacy.
Constant Presence: Ships are never fully empty; sailors must live aboard, even when not deployed.”
Space is Limited: Expect a small bunk (rack) and a locker; storage for luggage is minimal.
"Rack": A narrow bunk, often with a top or bottom option, offering limited privacy.
Constant Presence: Ships are never fully empty; sailors must live aboard, even when not deployed.”
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
This really depends on doctrine, and how that would effect that aspect of ship design.
The Germans didn't expect most of their units to set foot beyond the North Sea, so accommodations tended to be somewhat cramped.
And that's before they did their version of the Tokyo Express, into the ports of Norway.
The Germans didn't expect most of their units to set foot beyond the North Sea, so accommodations tended to be somewhat cramped.
And that's before they did their version of the Tokyo Express, into the ports of Norway.
MarcusIII
Emperor Mongoose
In today's Navy they temporarily assist Navy crews with general labor to manage the increased demand caused by their presence. This includes duties in the galley, laundry services, and general cleaning. They are NOT treated as passengers. I doubt they would be treated passengers and not given work to do
I'd have to disagree with the living on your ship even in port. That's not how it works today. Yes, when away from your base crew live on the ship - even in liberty ports. But when back at their home port they have regular barracks. Same went for us in the Army. When we deployed to the field we slept on cots, in bunkhouse, in tents, in our trucks (weren't supposed to do that, but was soo much easier when time was short).
The bunks in BSG (2nd series) seemed to be a bit better- they were larger than a standard naval bunk (or Army double-bunk). The bunk is just where you sleep, and sometime relax to get away from everyone else. But that's it's only real function. So space can be smaller.
You do get used to it at the enlisted - or you realize that the military isn't for you. If you stay in long enough as an NCO your quarters get much better because the military knows it can't treat you like a private for 20yrs. It does get tiring after a while.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Okay. I'll agree with that.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
There is no real benefit for traders either, as they guarantee that passengers are unprofitable...
They are used on e.g. the Mercenary Cruiser as an owner aboard accommodation. You never need them, they are just a bit or added chrome, if you want it...
The crew are generally strapped in in the cockpit or bridge. Cabin Space is used for short term passengers, as it has been since the introduction in MgT HG'2008.
One Traveller ship that does not quite follow the rules, what a chock! I would call that traditional...
The Mercenary Cruiser, Colonial Cruiser, and the Ghalalk illustrate their use as the rule outlines: Crew in staterooms, troops in barracks.
Agreed, just as the rules say: You CAN quarter troops in barracks, you don't have to...
You can quarter troops in single Luxury Stateroom, if you wish.
So, admirals generally have the same quarters as junior lieutenants?
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
So absolutely no benefit to military and dubious benefit to passenger vessels that charge the basic rate. Make you wonder what the point is really. Unless you think ship design is more than just service to the rulebook?
Despite the explicit examples I quoted where they are only available to crew as those vessels have NO passengers.
Or like one word that "proves" barracks can only be used for Marines. Perhaps not every word in every context should be treated as canon.
That just supports that they can be used for troops and marines (which no-one has contested). It does not disprove the opposite.
Agreed.
Where did I say that? If providing an Admiral with a luxury bed so he gets proper sleep without being woken by the snoring of a room-mate or gives him room to entertain diplomatic guests or trusted advisors then there is a benefit. It just has to be worth the extra cost.
Providing the lowest ranking deck swabber with a shared stateroom just because he fits some vague description of "crew" rather than a shared dorm with perfectly adequate accommodation like marines (who will actually have to fight to repel boarders) seems counter intuitive. Gunners are liable to see the same duty factor as Marines. Utter boredom for the majority of the time (no firing or boarding actions in Jump space and probably on 90% of in-system time) and 100% effort the rest of the time. Most ORs share a barracks block because it fosters team spirit and as an OR you are a cog in the machine. The time in your bunk is time to sleep, you socialise in the mess. That way your mates can keep an eye on you and keep you safe and on mission. When things go pear-shaped that shared life means you fight for your mates even of you don't agree with the doctrine you are fighting for. That is true in combat but also in damage or fire control and other "non-trooper" stress scenarios. You want people who care about their mates who they eat, sleep and socialise alongside. You don't get that with a couple of people who share a stateroom and might seldom meet if their shifts and duties don't coincide.
You don't have to follow that interpretation, but you equally don't have to keep yelling from the roof tops that people who do are wrong and are breaking the rules. If you posting a screen shot of the rule the first time didn't convince us then reposting a third time it won't either. Typos are common enough in Traveller that a word in one book doesn't automatically make a point. I require rules to be useful and to make sense in the context of the game. Barracks allows me to run ships that are a little leaner and cost effective rather than space borne hotels.
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
It was a discussion about current personal computer pricing, and the kay shaped economy.
If ten percent of the customers are worth fifty percent of the profit, then the ninety percent will be disregarded, or thrown under the bus.
If booked passages are not profitable (enough), the starship captains will only cater to the ones that can pay their increased ticket prices.
If ten percent of the customers are worth fifty percent of the profit, then the ninety percent will be disregarded, or thrown under the bus.
If booked passages are not profitable (enough), the starship captains will only cater to the ones that can pay their increased ticket prices.
MarcusIII
Emperor Mongoose
If they are on a submarine.
Hmm interesting. In CT High Guard ships troops were classed as crew. (as they were in MGT1 apparently).
"Ship's troops often fill the role of security forces aboard the ship, and are used for military adventures by the commander where necessary. Ship's troops are also used for damage control parties, manning of some weapons, and boarding actions."
So they also have "another function" aboard the ship. This sounds eminently sensible. The counter case would be a troopship where the infantry being transported would likely just get in the way of ships functions as their command structure and training is counter-productive.
"Staterooms or quarters must be provided for the entire crew. The captain of the ship must be provided with an individual stateroom, as must the
commanding officers of each section and the commander of the ship's troops. All other personnel on military vessels must be provided with the equivalent of half a stateroom each."
"Staterooms require four tons at a cost of Cr500,000 per stateroom. Staterooms actually average about two tons, but the additional tonnage is used to provide corridors and access ways, as well as galley and recreation areas."
So in CT the majority of crew (whether engineering, gunners or marines) had 1DTon of personal accommodation space. The other Dton of their share of a 4 Dton stateroom allocation was common areas.
In MGT1 barracks took up the same space as half a stateroom per marine, the only difference was the cost was lower.
"Ship's troops often fill the role of security forces aboard the ship, and are used for military adventures by the commander where necessary. Ship's troops are also used for damage control parties, manning of some weapons, and boarding actions."
So they also have "another function" aboard the ship. This sounds eminently sensible. The counter case would be a troopship where the infantry being transported would likely just get in the way of ships functions as their command structure and training is counter-productive.
"Staterooms or quarters must be provided for the entire crew. The captain of the ship must be provided with an individual stateroom, as must the
commanding officers of each section and the commander of the ship's troops. All other personnel on military vessels must be provided with the equivalent of half a stateroom each."
"Staterooms require four tons at a cost of Cr500,000 per stateroom. Staterooms actually average about two tons, but the additional tonnage is used to provide corridors and access ways, as well as galley and recreation areas."
So in CT the majority of crew (whether engineering, gunners or marines) had 1DTon of personal accommodation space. The other Dton of their share of a 4 Dton stateroom allocation was common areas.
In MGT1 barracks took up the same space as half a stateroom per marine, the only difference was the cost was lower.
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Our problem is, that the crew is competing with the fuel tanks, for space.
I don't have HG'22 revision, but this post by AnotherDilbert caught my attention:
HG'22, p92:
MARINES AND SHIP’S TROOPS
The terms marines and ship’s troops are sometimes used interchangeably. While the two share some of the same duties, there are significant differences in scope.
Ship’s troops are exactly that: troops on a ship. The primary role of the ship’s troop is to defend their ship. When the ship is docked to another, their duties may extend to the attached ship, whether they are sent inside as a security detachment, part of an inspection or a boarding party.
Marines are often used for the same duties but are also on hand for standard marine functions such as orbital drops and raiding. Marines also serve in lift-infantry units but this requires a special type of ship, usually a capital ship that is a member of an AssaultRon (assault squadron). Lift infantry usually include a vehicular component that requires a capital ship to transport it.
And it's completely.... wrong. Maybe if we were still using galleys and short-swords, I'd say that was more or less correct. But for past few centuries naval vessels (not pirates, but actual military vessels) have had either armed crew or marines as their onboard forces. A ship may have ratings trained with small arms who perform certain functions, such as acting as a guard when a ship is docked to ensure only authorized personnel come aboard. But that rating is simply pulling additional duty and isn't a "ships troop" as a singular task. Just like most ships have someone designated as a Master at Arms (or non-USN equivalent), whose job may either be, or include, the role as chief of police / security onboard a ship. The larger the ship the more space that is available for designated and specific roles.
There would be exceptions - such as a planetary navy that had regular Army troops onboard as Marine forces. That's kind of splitting hairs a bit, though I think that they'd essentially be "marines" while onboard and be treated the same from a rules perspective.
I realize it's "in the rules", but if the rules said you could repair a fusion reactor with duct tape and band aids, or that you could shoot a laser and bend the beam at a 90 degree angle 10m ahead of you to hit a target around the corner, I'd still call it wrong. I get it's a game and all, and we already make exceptions for teleporting humans in battle dress (i.e. Zho Marines).
HG'22, p92:
MARINES AND SHIP’S TROOPS
The terms marines and ship’s troops are sometimes used interchangeably. While the two share some of the same duties, there are significant differences in scope.
Ship’s troops are exactly that: troops on a ship. The primary role of the ship’s troop is to defend their ship. When the ship is docked to another, their duties may extend to the attached ship, whether they are sent inside as a security detachment, part of an inspection or a boarding party.
Marines are often used for the same duties but are also on hand for standard marine functions such as orbital drops and raiding. Marines also serve in lift-infantry units but this requires a special type of ship, usually a capital ship that is a member of an AssaultRon (assault squadron). Lift infantry usually include a vehicular component that requires a capital ship to transport it.
And it's completely.... wrong. Maybe if we were still using galleys and short-swords, I'd say that was more or less correct. But for past few centuries naval vessels (not pirates, but actual military vessels) have had either armed crew or marines as their onboard forces. A ship may have ratings trained with small arms who perform certain functions, such as acting as a guard when a ship is docked to ensure only authorized personnel come aboard. But that rating is simply pulling additional duty and isn't a "ships troop" as a singular task. Just like most ships have someone designated as a Master at Arms (or non-USN equivalent), whose job may either be, or include, the role as chief of police / security onboard a ship. The larger the ship the more space that is available for designated and specific roles.
There would be exceptions - such as a planetary navy that had regular Army troops onboard as Marine forces. That's kind of splitting hairs a bit, though I think that they'd essentially be "marines" while onboard and be treated the same from a rules perspective.
I realize it's "in the rules", but if the rules said you could repair a fusion reactor with duct tape and band aids, or that you could shoot a laser and bend the beam at a 90 degree angle 10m ahead of you to hit a target around the corner, I'd still call it wrong. I get it's a game and all, and we already make exceptions for teleporting humans in battle dress (i.e. Zho Marines).
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Damage control would be expected to be performed by the Marines, assuming they aren't, currently, fighting off an enemy boarding party.
It would be in their own self interest, considering jumping overboard isn't that great of an option, especially in space.
In theory, they could also man a number of weapon system stations.
Naval landing parties kinda requires excess personnel, that the warship can afford to detach.
It would be in their own self interest, considering jumping overboard isn't that great of an option, especially in space.
In theory, they could also man a number of weapon system stations.
Naval landing parties kinda requires excess personnel, that the warship can afford to detach.
