|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 28, 2017 18:16:22 GMT
the ops section doubles in size deltav not the engineering section, I don't need 9 more crew for a 10.1kt ship compared to a 9.9kt ship |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 18:20:53 GMT
the ops section doubles in size deltav not the engineering section, I don't need 9 more crew for a 10.1kt ship compared to a 9.9kt ship I never said anything about engineering so help me out, I don't understand. And it's over 8000 t or so you need double crews on Coms, Astro and Sensors, not 9900 t. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 28, 2017 18:27:41 GMT
deltav the engineering section has all the maintenance techs and if you swap 9.9 and 10.1 for 7.9 and 8.1 it still works
|
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 18:37:20 GMT
deltav the engineering section has all the maintenance techs and if you swap 9.9 and 10.1 for 7.9 and 8.1 it still works to . After Private message chat.. Ok got you, you are saying the cutoff is arbitrary. Maybe. But it has to be a cutoff somewhere right? Also this is ONLY regarding the Coms, Astro and Sensor positions, they have a cutoff based on ship size. The other positions are different. For instance you have 3 Radiator techs whether you have 1 radiator or 20. I didn't test the upper limit yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 28, 2017 18:39:54 GMT
and I have 1 maintenance tech for 700 AShM's
|
|
|
|
Post by tortugagreen on Feb 28, 2017 18:47:14 GMT
So my understanding of what has been said so far is that the addition of the 9th fuel tank pushes my ship over a certain limit where a second comms/sensors/astrogation person is needed per crew shift, which is what is expanding the crew like that. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 18:49:18 GMT
So my understanding of what has been said so far is that the addition of the 9th fuel tank pushes my ship over a certain limit in either size or ∆v where a second comms/sensors/astrogation person is needed per crew shift, which is what is expanding the crew like that. Is this correct? Yeah that's it. Above that limit, you don't need any more comms/sensors/astrogation officers up until infinity. 8000 t seems to be the cutoff. (I reproduced your ship, and added 1000 1kt Water Tanks and still only needed 54 officers total.) Most ship positions are not based on ship mass, but comms/sensors/astrogation begs for an extra officer to help per shift, but no more after that.   |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 19:02:21 GMT
and I have 1 maintenance tech for 700 AShM's Every position is different. Some are based on ship size, some on other things. It makes sense to me. How much looking after do missiles in storage need anyway? For instance, say you have flak missile launchers. No matter how many Flak missile launchers you have you only need... 1 Electronic Warfare Officer 1 Flak Missile Fly-By-Wire Pilot 1 Flak Missile Tech But you need 1 Flak Launcher Tech for every 2 Flak Launchers. (Haven't tested the upper limit though, maybe if you have 1000 flak missiles you need more EWs or Pilots or Missile Techs, but I don't think so.) And it makes since, Missiles in storage don't need much care just occasional checking/ inspection. But Launchers get a lot of use and if they break, the missile won't clear the ship, and it will blow up. So it makes since to have at least 2 techs to operate and repair each launcher. |
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 19:23:10 GMT
Maybe... but I trust that Qswitched studied the problem and I agree with him. Since a mistake in Coms, Navigation, or Sensors can cause the loss of the entire ship with very little warning, it makes sense that they are double crewed if the ship is large enough to accommodate it. Whether the ship is military or not, Coms, Navigation and Sensors are no less important. And having two crew on duty is not redundant, it would be needed to handle the amount of work required and to double check each other's work. They also would have to know how to detect and repair malfunctions and would be responsible for that. I'm sure both would be busy their entire shift. I think it would be silly to skimp on such an essential position to save on the weight of 3 people. The other positions run equipment that can be shut down in an emergency, but sensors, navigation and coms can't be shut down or the ship is helpless and might crash into a planet or worse. So I agree with the way it is now. I'd counter your premise that those positions would be highly swamped or overly busy on a constant basis. Space is big, the time scale to transit anywhere is massive. The weight of those three people has to include a berth, food, air, and water (or adequate reclamation hardware) for the duration of the trip. So at some point, it may make sense to have them, or it may not be worth the weight. That's where it comes down to "how much can a computer do and how many people can handle that task?" Unfortunately we can't accurately pin that down. |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 19:24:31 GMT
Agree mostly. True beyond this point much is speculation  What we know for sure is that ships over 8000t or so and up need 18 Comms/Astro/Sensors officers. We know people need to sleep 8 hours, and rest 8 hours to be fresh for 8 hours of work. That means 3 shifts of 6 officers each that work together in concert. You can change the game if you are able to make a case based on science and info of why less is needed. We see Qswitched responds to this. So maybe that is the place to start. Science and info. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_system |
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 19:53:22 GMT
We can change the game and change this forum. We've seen that. But our suggestions have to be based on serious analysis at least as thorough as what Qswitched did. Oof... That's three fields that need to be combined. Near future computing, robotics, and space naval doctrine. IE: I'd guess that robotics would supplement maintenance, with computer analysis/diagnostics, and human oversight. If you could reasonably estimate all of those factors, you could figure out crew requirements. Pretty tall order filled with speculation. I think we ought to look at positions that can easily be removed. Comms and astronavigation seem excessive when computers can handle the routing of messages and plotting of orbital maneuvers, especially within the micro drone environment and well known solar system bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 20:10:00 GMT
Oof... That's three fields that need to be combined. Near future computing, robotics, and space naval doctrine. IE: I'd guess that robotics would supplement maintenance, with computer analysis/diagnostics, and human oversight. If you could reasonably estimate all of those factors, you could figure out crew requirements. Pretty tall order filled with speculation. I think we ought to look at positions that can easily be removed. Comms and astronavigation seem excessive when computers can handle the routing of messages and plotting of orbital maneuvers, especially within the micro drone environment and well known solar system bodies. Here is the most modern CIC with 24 stations per shift. That means at least 72 people total.  Comparison, our COADE CICs only have 7 stations per shift. That's less than 1/3 modern requirements. So you are saying an entire CIC should be run with only 3 people? 2? How many? Please share more sources and data. Speculation is completely subjective. I mean it gets super theoretical without any science or research, and this is all about science and research. Maybe use some data from the link below or some other link. www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewartactic.php#id--Fleet_Command--CIC_FunctionsEdit: Also check this out... memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/User:FleetCaptain/StarTrekVSNavyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_room |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 28, 2017 20:21:28 GMT
Oof... That's three fields that need to be combined. Near future computing, robotics, and space naval doctrine. IE: I'd guess that robotics would supplement maintenance, with computer analysis/diagnostics, and human oversight. If you could reasonably estimate all of those factors, you could figure out crew requirements. Pretty tall order filled with speculation. I think we ought to look at positions that can easily be removed. Comms and astronavigation seem excessive when computers can handle the routing of messages and plotting of orbital maneuvers, especially within the micro drone environment and well known solar system bodies. Here is the most modern CIC with 24 stations per shift. That means at least 72 people total. Comparison, our COADE CICs only have 7 stations per shift. That's less than 1/3 modern requirements. So you are saying an entire CIC should be run with only 3 people? 2? How many? Please share more sources and data. Speculation is completely subjective. I mean it gets super theoretical without any science or research, and this is all about science and research. Maybe use some data from the link below or some other link. www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewartactic.php#id--Fleet_Command--CIC_Functionsall CICs are new, they've only been around for 80 odd years (1932ish) |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 28, 2017 20:27:08 GMT
EnderminionSince radar, sonar, radio, electronic countermeasures, ship to ship missiles, aircraft used in naval warfare, and so on didn't come into use until the 1930s that makes sense doesn't it? Before that no CIC was needed, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 28, 2017 20:30:21 GMT
Enderminion Since radar, sonar, radio, electronic countermeasures, ship to ship missiles, aircraft used in naval warfare, and so on didn't come into use until the 1930s that makes sense doesn't it? Before that no CIC was needed, no? yes but it was not called a CIC till then and after Admiral Nimitz caught wind of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman_series Lensman Series EDIT: before you say it was published in 1950, they were collected from magazines published earlier |
|
