Military ships and crew

[Sigtrygg]

Funny the Whitestars which are higher tech than the standard Minbari ship use barracks for all the crew.

Whitestar barracks are mentioned here:

not exactly triple bunks stacked like sardines is it...

Submarines run a similar environmental requirements as a space ship which makes it a very realistic comparison.

In your opinion. In my opinion I don't think they equate at all, modern submarines are not 57th century starships.

Tech level doesn’t eliminate the fact that space on a warship is limited

This would only be true if the entire ship were built in cubic metres rather than displacement tons and every corridor and cupgoard accounted for. There is a certain amount of abstraction in the ship design system How much of the jump drive tonnage is machinery and how much is access?

or the fact that part of military discipline is rank has its advantages which you want to eliminate.

Why would you want to eliminate the privilege of rank. Higher ranks getting more room is partially to account for the meeting spaces they require, the abstraction again. A 4 ton stateroom for an admiral could be 2 tons living area and 2 tons conference. Unless you are going to account for everything separately we are left with the abstraction. This was perhaps best summed up all the way back in HG'79

"The following items are suggested uses for interior space aboard a starship. The actual masses and costs for such areas are left to the referee when actually designing such a ship. Many of these items are subsumed in the costs and tonnages of 4 ton staterooms. In most cases, such areas are required only when drawing up deck plans. Food Service Areas, including mess hall, galley, ward room. Scientific Areas, including laboratories and storerooms. Electronics Areas, including commo suites, avionics areas, electronics counter-measures installations, gunnery simulation trainers, computer operations areas and parts storage. Vehicle Decks, including garaging, maintenance bays, launching areas and parts storage. Recycling Stations. Medical Areas, including isolation wards, surgeries, pharmacies, and examination rooms. Recreational Facilities, including theatres, crafts shops, libraries, and pool rooms. Agricultural Areas, including fresh food gardens, hydroponics areas, and algae tanks. Troop Barracks, including squad areas, training rooms, armories, brigs, ammunition magazines, vacc suit storage, capsule launch areas and briefing rooms."

 

[swordtart]

"The following items are suggested uses for interior space aboard a starship. The actual masses and costs for such areas are left to the referee when actually designing such a ship. Many of these items are subsumed in the costs and tonnages of 4 ton staterooms. In most cases, such areas are required only when drawing up deck plans. Food Service Areas, including mess hall, galley, ward room. Scientific Areas, including laboratories and storerooms. Electronics Areas, including commo suites, avionics areas, electronics counter-measures installations, gunnery simulation trainers, computer operations areas and parts storage. Vehicle Decks, including garaging, maintenance bays, launching areas and parts storage. Recycling Stations. Medical Areas, including isolation wards, surgeries, pharmacies, and examination rooms. Recreational Facilities, including theatres, crafts shops, libraries, and pool rooms. Agricultural Areas, including fresh food gardens, hydroponics areas, and algae tanks. Troop Barracks, including squad areas, training rooms, armories, brigs, ammunition magazines, vacc suit storage, capsule launch areas and briefing rooms."

This is no longer true in MGT2. The majority of those spaces are now specifically called out in components with their own tonnage and cost. That is one of the reasons I don't think a 4 DTon stateroom is the same as an old school 4 Dton stateroom and why they can and should be smaller and why for the majority of crew a 1Dton spacer niche (i.e. barracks) is entirely appropriate.

If we are assuming that a crew stateroom includes all the stuff necessary to do their job (laboratory, electronics areas, commo suites, vehicle decks etc.) then we don't need to allocate space for that elsewhere and we can get ships smaller that way. We could get the Lab Ship down to 300 Dtons easily if we assume the labs are part of the 4 DTon stateroom allocation rather than a discrete component that needs to be installed.

That video you included seemed to be more alongside space ship accommodation being more compressed than Traveller indicates. Not triple stacked like that WW2 ship or a submarine, but those spaces looked nothing like 14 cubic metres per person either (the sub bunks and even the modern ship looked more like 4 cubic metres if that).

 

[Sigtrygg]

This is no longer true in MGT2.

Never claimed it was. And isn't the game all the richer for the contradictions and arguments.

The majority of those spaces are now specifically called out in components with their own tonnage and cost.

I think you missed the point. You buy a stateroom but designate it as a lab space for example. You don't get a free lab just because you have a scientist in a stateroom.

That is one of the reasons I don't think a 4 DTon stateroom is the same as an old school 4 Dton stateroom and why they can and should be smaller and why for the majority of crew a 1Dton spacer niche (i.e. barracks) is entirely appropriate.

Then scrap staterooms and account for life support and environmental control per person and then allocate berth space, while at it make sure you have enough food preparation areas, stores, spares etc and all the other components that are abstracted by ship design.

If we are assuming that a crew stateroom includes all the stuff necessary to do their job (laboratory, electronics areas, commo suites, vehicle decks etc.)

That is not the assumption.

then we don't need to allocate space for that elsewhere and we can get ships smaller that way.

Which is what everyone is intent on doing by reducing berthing volume...

We could get the Lab Ship down to 300 Dtons easily if we assume the labs are part of the 4 DTon stateroom allocation rather than a discrete component that needs to be installed.

Then there is no where for the scientists to sleep or eat.

That video you included seemed to be more alongside space ship accommodation being more compressed than Traveller indicates. Not triple stacked like that WW2 ship or a submarine, but those spaces looked nothing like 14 cubic metres per person either (the sub bunks and even the modern ship looked more like 4 cubic metres if that).

The stateroom is more than just the sleeping area. It is the only abstraction we have for all the stuff needed to cater for a person aboard a spaceship.

 

[phavoc]

The pic I showed was literally crew quarters on a submarine for enlisted E-4 and under. The whole ideal that crew gets the same living quarters no matter what the rank is just not true and the fact that not a one of you have addressed this just shows you don’t understand the military. You can say troops are passengers and get no space because they are on the ship temporarily but that doesn’t actually fit the game. Travel time makes this unrealistic if you can keep troops in a barracks for months even years at a time while moving them from one system to the next keeping crew in the same sort of environment for the same amount of time only makes sense.

Also apparently you not paying attention that what I’m saying, my point from the beginning has been that the rule that barracks are only for passengers should be changed in the case of military ships. On a military ship the rule should be that crew and troops can both be housed in barracks since that’s actually how it’s done in real life. Quoting the rules over and over again mean nothing when we are talking about rule changes.

Yeah, I can see the conversation between us is going nowhere. There's no point in continuing to discuss this topic as you are stating things I didn't say. If I'm misinterpreting that, please provide the specific quotes to where I said those things because I don't believe I did. Now, how you interpret them is all you, as it is with everyone.

My entire point is the interpretation of the rule - and I don't think I've quoted the rules myself anywhere. I've explained my view of the military and my experience in the military (and I've never claimed to be a swabbie, though I have been aboard a number of ships, especially older ones). Differentiating assigned crew based on their role is a cheat. Every crew member of the same rank should be treated the same. And I have differentiated my definition of that. 2 man cabins for crew have been the norm for many versions. Having barracks isn't the issue. (or not mine at least). It was differentiating putting ships troops in barracks and naval crew in cabins. So long as everyone of the same rank is treated equally for cubeage then you've got a reasonable standard.

Thanks for the discussion though. And thank you for not devolving it as well. Those are always tedious ones.

 

[swordtart]

Never claimed it was. And isn't the game all the richer for the contradictions and arguments.

Was CT any less contradictory or the player base any less argumentative. As you have mentioned before many of these arguments have been raging since the first editions (just less publicly as we didn't have such a player base or such public forums). It would have been nice if later editions settled them but there was always someone to argue it was better in the old edition and publishers didn't want to rock the boat.

I think you missed the point. You buy a stateroom but designate it as a lab space for example. You don't get a free lab just because you have a scientist in a stateroom.

Ah ok. I took the phrase "Many of these items are subsumed in the costs and tonnages of 4 ton staterooms" to mean those items were included in the cost and tonnages of 4 ton staterooms. That is the normal meaning of subsumed.

There are far less circuitous ways of saying "if you want to include things like labs, just treat them as staterooms with respect to cost and tonnage".

I am honestly unable to see how it could be interpreted any other way, but as it is from HG1979 and of only historic interest I am content to leave it. All of my other points are subordinate to my interpretation of the word subsumed. If you reject that then the others fall by default.