Robot Crew Oversight

Terry Mixon

Emperor Mongoose
I’m reviewing all my ship designs and in the process I’m using robotic engineers, maintenance, and admin where practical.

For drone ships (non-jump capable) they have no direct oversight. For ships with sophont crew, I’m thinking of having oversight.

My initial thought is 10% round down. If there are 10 robotic engineers, then there would be one sophont engineer to oversee it all.

Too many? Too few? Not needed at all? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
 
I think it depends on what the failure rate is for the tasks they do.

If they fail 12% of the time (pulling numbers out of thin air) then the supervisor will have to fix that and so roughly 1 per 9 robots.

But adding robot supervisors will reduce that number because of the rare likely hood of a task chain failure collapse.

What tasks do they do and how few "bags of muscle and water" do you want to pay for?
 
I’m reviewing all my ship designs and in the process I’m using robotic engineers, maintenance, and admin where practical.

For drone ships (non-jump capable) they have no direct oversight. For ships with sophont crew, I’m thinking of having oversight.

My initial thought is 10% round down. If there are 10 robotic engineers, then there would be one sophont engineer to oversee it all.

Too many? Too few? Not needed at all? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
I admit I’m reluctant to use robots, virtual crew and robot brains as much as would logically be the case for adventure class ships just because I want my players to interact with a wide range of sophists [edit: lawl sophonts… thanks spellchecker] for game purposes.

How do you deal with this? Don’t you find yourself starved of chances to introduce NPCs if the players just use robots for everything? Or do you fudge the robot brain complexity elements and just make the robots highly idiosyncratic?

Edit: also thanks for the constant stream of ideas, content and new items you come up with every week. I use several of your creations on my game and it really helps keep things fresh.
 
Last edited:
I admit I’m reluctant to use robots, virtual crew and robot brains as much as would logically be the case for adventure class ships just because I want my players to interact with a wide range of sophists for game purposes.

How do you deal with this? Don’t you find yourself starved of chances to introduce NPCs if the players just use robots for everything? Or do you fudge the robot brain complexity elements and just make the robots highly idiosyncratic?

Edit: also thanks for the constant stream of ideas, content and new items you come up with every week. I use several of your creations on my game and it really helps keep things fresh.
You’re welcome.

I think that adventure class ships are less at risk for robot overuse and the oversight thread here is me wondering how to have people in the mix.
 
I admit I’m reluctant to use robots, virtual crew and robot brains as much as would logically be the case for adventure class ships just because I want my players to interact with a wide range of sophists [edit: lawl sophonts… thanks spellchecker] for game purposes.

How do you deal with this? Don’t you find yourself starved of chances to introduce NPCs if the players just use robots for everything? Or do you fudge the robot brain complexity elements and just make the robots highly idiosyncratic?

Edit: also thanks for the constant stream of ideas, content and new items you come up with every week. I use several of your creations on my game and it really helps keep things fresh.
Well, you're not exactly going to have a large number of robotic passengers now, are you? There will be sophonts available.
 
Well, you're not exactly going to have a large number of robotic passengers now, are you? There will be sophonts available.
One of my campaigns is in session 16 and the characters are about to carry their first passenger (Hteilotorl) who I suspect will be their last for a very long time. It’s not a universal answer!
 
For ships with sophont crew, I’m thinking of having oversight.

My initial thought is 10% round down. If there are 10 robotic engineers, then there would be one sophont engineer to oversee it all.

Too many? Too few? Not needed at all? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
I think it depends on what the failure rate is for the tasks they do.

If they fail 12% of the time (pulling numbers out of thin air) then the supervisor will have to fix that and so roughly 1 per 9 robots.
I think this is a good approach; and to some degree the type of Expert/x being run on the robots can be a consideration.
Expert/1 (TL-10+ robots) allows Difficult (10+) tasks to be attempted;
Expert/2 (TL-12+ robots) allows Very Difficult (12+) tasks to be attempted; and
Expert/3 (TL-15+ robots) allows Formidable (14+) tasks to be attempted.

A Robot with +8 (skill package + attribute bonus) to tasks and Expert/1 will succeed on all tasks it can attempt; so a sophont supervisor would only need to work on tasks which were difficulty of 11+; whatever fraction of tasks that is. Many robots will be built with more limited capabilities; and the number of supervisors needed depends on both (capability of Robot) and (frequency of different task difficulties); or rather 'percentage of tasks that the Robot is expected to fail'.

My intuition is that the 'percentage of tasks that the Robot is expected to fail' is going to be quite small, basically only failing in unusual circumstances (ie, when an adventure happens), so one supervisor in ten seems like a generous safety margin; but this is probably a per-game referee call.
 
I think this is a good approach; and to some degree the type of Expert/x being run on the robots can be a consideration.
Expert/1 (TL-10+ robots) allows Difficult (10+) tasks to be attempted;
Expert/2 (TL-12+ robots) allows Very Difficult (12+) tasks to be attempted; and
Expert/3 (TL-15+ robots) allows Formidable (14+) tasks to be attempted.

A Robot with +8 (skill package + attribute bonus) to tasks and Expert/1 will succeed on all tasks it can attempt; so a sophont supervisor would only need to work on tasks which were difficulty of 11+; whatever fraction of tasks that is. Many robots will be built with more limited capabilities; and the number of supervisors needed depends on both (capability of Robot) and (frequency of different task difficulties); or rather 'percentage of tasks that the Robot is expected to fail'.

My intuition is that the 'percentage of tasks that the Robot is expected to fail' is going to be quite small, basically only failing in unusual circumstances (ie, when an adventure happens), so one supervisor in ten seems like a generous safety margin; but this is probably a per-game referee call.
Hmmm. So, perhaps 1/10 for the least capable (TL10), 1/20 for the mid tier (TL12), and if you have expert/3 robots (TL15), perhaps only a single person or even none?
 
Okay, here are my three robot engineers.

First up is a modified Engineer Droid. It has Expert/1 so it can handle Difficult tasks.
1756063762421.png

Then we have the Advanced Engineer Droid. It can handle Very Difficult tasks. I envision 1/10 on them to the Modified Engineer Droids.

1756063828975.png

And finally we have the Supervisor Engineer Droid. It is very capable and expensive, but with Expert/3, it can handle Formidable tasks. I see these as being 1/10 when compared to the Supervisor Engineer Droids. Smaller ships likely wouldn't have one of these.

1756064188895.png
 
And here are my Admin Droids. They use the same classifications as the engineering droids and serve with the same ratios. They are size 4 because they don't need all the extra equipment.

EDIT: Updated to match the updated designs posted below.

First up is the Admin Droid. It has Expert/1 so it can handle Difficult tasks.

1756075440868.png

Then we have the Advanced Admin Droid. It can handle Very Difficult tasks. I envision 1/10 on them to the Admin Droids.

1756075457975.png

And finally we have the Supervisor Admin Droid. It is very capable and expensive, but with Expert/3, it can handle Formidable tasks. I see these as being 1/10 when compared to the Supervisor Admin Droids. Smaller ships likely wouldn't have one of these.

1756075476111.png
 
Last edited:
These are all good, and I very much sympathize with the desire to build the 'bots off of a common chassis design, but I think they might be paying for options they do not really need -- like 'Armor 8' and extra endurance. If these are intended for ship-board use, then having a shorter endurance & access to an inductive recharging plate might be sufficient; certainly anything much more than 168-ish hours (one week of constant duty) of endurance is a bit overkill.

Are you using Technetiums' Google sheet to lay these out?
 
These are all good, and I very much sympathize with the desire to build the 'bots off of a common chassis design, but I think they might be paying for options they do not really need -- like 'Armor 8' and extra endurance. If these are intended for ship-board use, then having a shorter endurance & access to an inductive recharging plate might be sufficient; certainly anything much more than 168-ish hours (one week of constant duty) of endurance is a bit overkill.

Are you using Technetiums' Google sheet to lay these out?
No, I'm using the Mongoose version. I'll look back and update them. Thanks for the poke.
 
These are all good, and I very much sympathize with the desire to build the 'bots off of a common chassis design, but I think they might be paying for options they do not really need -- like 'Armor 8' and extra endurance. If these are intended for ship-board use, then having a shorter endurance & access to an inductive recharging plate might be sufficient; certainly anything much more than 168-ish hours (one week of constant duty) of endurance is a bit overkill.

Are you using Technetiums' Google sheet to lay these out?
The armor is based off the Robot Handbook and the Standard Engineering Droid. It has the +4 armor for a total of +8 with what is standard. To keep things even with the book, I'll keep that.

I could turn off efficiency and save KCr5. I'd need to buy a powerpack to get it back over 168 hours. That takes back KCr1, so a total savings of KCr4. Hmmm. It makes no sense for the two advanced models, but I could do it for the least expensive.

After waffling, I think I'll stand pat on the engineers. MixCorp has standards and keeping the line consistent makes sense to me.

Any other comments on the engineering robots?

The admins can lose the armor. I missed that I'd kept it in copying the design to make them. Thanks.

I can drop the armor but I'll keep efficiency again.

Thoughts on these?

1756074579426.png1756074590959.png1756074603791.png
 
Even in a droid-heavy universe, you might also consider the time it takes to make back their cost as a factor in both the target end price and when a sophont would be a more logical choice. We do have numbers for how much it costs to hire a sophont, so that will be the economic breakpoint. A hired Engineer should be at least Engineering 1 in Jump Drives. With characteristics bonuses and expert software and toolkits etc. they should be operating at Engineering 2-3 in their specialist field and 1-2 in all others.

Robots don't need staterooms or life support (and the power is effectively free) so you can take that into account also. They do however require annual maintenance and whilst that cost isn't great (0.1%) for the more expensive droids it starts to become a factor.

We are probably not talking about the "life" of a droid since they can be eternal if they have regular annual maintenance but more the economic life for each owner.

A flesh-bag Engineer costs you Cr4000 per month, shared stateroom is another Cr1000, plus it also represents 2DTons of cargo you can't carry so on average Cr2000 in opportunity cost. Overall you are looking at saving Cr7000 per month or KCr84 per year. That makes the basic models a no-brainer (assuming you have the capital up front) as it pays for itself in just over a year, especially as it gives you a crew member who can work if life support fails and is likely expendable if there is a radiation leak or fire etc. Depending on YTU standard or hired Engineer it maybe a little less skilled, but not all hired engineers are that good in all areas.

The advanced one pays for itself in around two and a half years and is on-par with even good hired on Engineers and if you buy it on finance (i.e. as part of the ship) then it is a sound investment.

The supervisor is more of a challenge and this is where I think the Sophont becomes more likely. Whilst skill level 5 is impressive, it is seldom required. Higher skilled sophonts can command a higher salary (and probably their own stateroom) but it probably won't make their monthly cost much higher than KCr10. At that pay It will take 18 years for the supervisor droid to pay for itself (taking the maintenance costs into account). That is far less easy to justify. In 18 years it is easy to anticipate there will be some sort of breakdown in an expensive component or total loss. While this would be a tragedy for a flesh-bag hireling, to be hard-nosed, you won't have to pay for a replacement, you just hire on a new crewman.

So my take would be that once you need a Formidable Task capability, a skilled sophont crewman is probably the better option. In less droid-heavy universes (or heavily unionised ones) the threshold might be Very Difficult Tasks.
 
Even in a droid-heavy universe, you might also consider the time it takes to make back their cost as a factor in both the target end price and when a sophont would be a more logical choice. We do have numbers for how much it costs to hire a sophont, so that will be the economic breakpoint. A hired Engineer should be at least Engineering 1 in Jump Drives. With characteristics bonuses and expert software and toolkits etc. they should be operating at Engineering 2-3 in their specialist field and 1-2 in all others.

Robots don't need staterooms or life support (and the power is effectively free) so you can take that into account also. They do however require annual maintenance and whilst that cost isn't great (0.1%) for the more expensive droids it starts to become a factor.

We are probably not talking about the "life" of a droid since they can be eternal if they have regular annual maintenance but more the economic life for each owner.

A flesh-bag Engineer costs you Cr4000 per month, shared stateroom is another Cr1000, plus it also represents 2DTons of cargo you can't carry so on average Cr2000 in opportunity cost. Overall you are looking at saving Cr7000 per month or KCr84 per year. That makes the basic models a no-brainer (assuming you have the capital up front) as it pays for itself in just over a year, especially as it gives you a crew member who can work if life support fails and is likely expendable if there is a radiation leak or fire etc. Depending on YTU standard or hired Engineer it maybe a little less skilled, but not all hired engineers are that good in all areas.

The advanced one pays for itself in around two and a half years and is on-par with even good hired on Engineers and if you buy it on finance (i.e. as part of the ship) then it is a sound investment.

The supervisor is more of a challenge and this is where I think the Sophont becomes more likely. Whilst skill level 5 is impressive, it is seldom required. Higher skilled sophonts can command a higher salary (and probably their own stateroom) but it probably won't make their monthly cost much higher than KCr10. At that pay It will take 18 years for the supervisor droid to pay for itself (taking the maintenance costs into account). That is far less easy to justify. In 18 years it is easy to anticipate there will be some sort of breakdown in an expensive component or total loss. While this would be a tragedy for a flesh-bag hireling, to be hard-nosed, you won't have to pay for a replacement, you just hire on a new crewman.

So my take would be that once you need a Formidable Task capability, a skilled sophont crewman is probably the better option. In less droid-heavy universes (or heavily unionised ones) the threshold might be Very Difficult Tasks.
Doesn't matter how long it takes to pay off the droid if it is sold and financed as part of the ship. As long as you maintain the droid and no one destroys it, droids will always be more economical over the long term. (a 40-year mortgage period)
 
The supervisor is more of a challenge and this is where I think the Sophont becomes more likely. Whilst skill level 5 is impressive, it is seldom required. Higher skilled sophonts can command a higher salary (and probably their own stateroom) but it probably won't make their monthly cost much higher than KCr10. At that pay It will take 18 years for the supervisor droid to pay for itself (taking the maintenance costs into account).
A skill/1 Engineer earns 4kCr per month; with an additional 2kCr per skill level above one. A Skill/5 engineer can reasonably expect to be paid 12kCr per month; making the nominal monthly cost 15kCr even without (17kCr with) a private stateroom.
 
A skill/1 Engineer earns 4kCr per month; with an additional 2kCr per skill level above one. A Skill/5 engineer can reasonably expect to be paid 12kCr per month; making the nominal monthly cost 15kCr even without (17kCr with) a private stateroom.
The Robot does not actually have Engineering 5 it has Engineering 3 and gets +2 for INT12 for a total DM+5. I am not sure if this even works as the Engineering Toolkit caps the skill level at 3. In the example of the Star Tek is indicates this includes any DM for INT.

Salary is determined by skill level and a sophont can get DM+5 in other ways than having skill 5. A high EDU does not normally equate to a higher salary. There is also nothing stopping a sophont from using an Expert system for another DM+1. Expert-3 is KCr20 and would provide DM+1 for even Formidable tasks.

My extrapolation was based on an Engineer-3 with an EDU bonus and an Expert system. Engineer-3 earns KCr8.
 
Okay, here are my three robot engineers.

...

And finally we have the Supervisor Engineer Droid. It is very capable and expensive, but with Expert/3, it can handle Formidable tasks. I see these as being 1/10 when compared to the Supervisor Engineer Droids. Smaller ships likely wouldn't have one of these.

View attachment 5711
Sorry late niggle. I am not sure you can have Engineer 5. I think the Star Tek example makes it clear that the Skill Level 3 cap from the Advanced Engineering tools includes the INT bonus.

RH p64
" Starship engineering toolkit (advanced) Max DM+3"

I read this as the Max DM you can apply to this roll (from Skill and/or INT DM)

RH p75
"... Its INT 12 provides DM+2 to all these skills, allowing a package of skill level 1 to emulate skill level 3 in the execution of its duties."
"... With an advanced starship engineering toolkit, the robot can perform all these tasks at a equivalent skill level 3."

If I read that correctly, I think that means Skill higher than 3 is impossible in Engineering Tasks. On the upside this is an excellent reasons for that to be the supervisory level for a sophont.
 
Last edited:
A skill/1 Engineer earns 4kCr per month; with an additional 2kCr per skill level above one. A Skill/5 engineer can reasonably expect to be paid 12kCr per month; making the nominal monthly cost 15kCr even without (17kCr with) a private stateroom.
This makes me wonder about something else. If you are paying your star engineer 12,000Cr per month, he won't stay in a medium stateroom because it is below his SOC. Look at the Standards of Life table on page 98 in the CRB. If we assume that only 25% of his salary goes to pay for standards of living, that still puts him at 3,000Cr per month or SOC 10 or 11. A person like that is not travelling in a medium stateroom.
 
Sorry late niggle. I am not sure you can have Engineer 5. I think the Star Tek example makes it clear that the Skill Level 3 cap from the Advanced Engineering tools includes the INT bonus.

RH p75
"... Its INT 12 provides DM+2 to all these skills, allowing a package of skill level 1 to emulate skill level 3 in the execution of its duties."
"... With an advanced starship engineering toolkit, the robot can perform all these tasks at a equivalent skill level 3."

If I read that correctly, I think that means Skill higher than 3 is impossible in Engineering Tasks. On the upside this is an excellent reasons for that to be the supervisory level for a sophont.
I am going to say that this can not be correct for one very simple reason. The smarter the robot the less skill it is able to have? That seems to be the opposite of how it should work. If my robot has a 15 INT, are you telling Me that I can now use no skills because their INT bonus is already +3?
 
Back
Top