Subj:	#1(2) TRAVELLER digest 331
Date:	95-06-28 21:56:55 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
Mail Split By Gateway


			    TRAVELLER Digest 331

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re:  BR Conversions	by pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
  2) 800 Mj Laser (TL 14, non-tunable)	by pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
  3) Re: BR Conversions	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) Defending against Big Lasers	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
  5) Re: New Fusion/Plasma rules	by jamesd@spirit.com.au (James Dempsey)
  6) re: Fuel air explosives (FAE)	by HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx)
  7) Re: Big Lasers (Td#328)	by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
  8) Re: Ship Crews (Td#330)	by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
  9) Re: Ship Crews	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:45:59 +0800
From: pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re:  BR Conversions
Message-ID: <9506280245.AA12627@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

>the missiles are listed M:5(20)---since the FC is -4, then a given MFD could
>control 4 missiles.  I don't have the BL version in front of me, but I
assume
>that it has a few MFDs to control missiles.  Shouldn't the BR designs (damn
near
>all of them, actually (if military)) almost always be able to control as
many
>missiles as the MFDs can?  Since missiles are easy to kill in BR, it makes
a big
>difference.

Or, more than likely I stuffed up the conversion.  According to my
understanding, 
M:5(20) indicated 5 missile-capable MFD's, and 20 missiles carried on the
ship.
The Barque does have 5 MFD's, all of which are capable of directing missiles.
The 3 missile barbettes each hold 4 missiles, and a further 8 missiles are
stored
in the ship's magazine. (Total = 20).  Is this interpretation off the mark?
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 11:35:22 +0800
From: pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 800 Mj Laser (TL 14, non-tunable)
Message-ID: <9506280335.AA14043@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

TL-14 800 Mj Laser (non-tunable x-ray laser)

This laser will fit into a standard 50t Bay (the width of the bay is just
enough to accomodate the focal array).  The laser is powered to 800 Mj in
line with the TLx15 guideline.  The laser's rate of fire has been pumped up
to 100 shots/30mins in order to receive -2 diff mods for rate of fire.

volume: 220.82m^2 (normally mounted in 700m^2 bay)
mass:   380.82t
cost:   MCr21.366
power:  222.94 MW (overpowered to -2 diff mods)
        111.47 MW (overpowered to -1 diff mod)
        22.940 MW (no overpowering)

performance:    10:1/28-71 20:1/28-71 40:1/28-71 80:1/28-71


Design notes available if requested...although it'll take a while to
translate them
from the scrap I was working on!
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 22:17:01 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: BR Conversions
Message-ID: <9506280417.AA19949@Rt66.com>

Michael Bailey replied to my missile director comment as follows:
`
> Or, more than likely I stuffed up the conversion.  According to my
> understanding, 
> M:5(20) indicated 5 missile-capable MFD's, and 20 missiles carried on the
ship.
> The Barque does have 5 MFD's, all of which are capable of directing
missiles.
> The 3 missile barbettes each hold 4 missiles, and a further 8 missiles are
> stored
> in the ship's magazine. (Total = 20).  Is this interpretation off the mark?
> Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)
> 
Well, the number 20 should be 12 according to the conversion rules, unless
the
ship has an auto loader.  As for the missile directors, you are right as far
as
the BR rules are concerned.  My point was that the BR rules for converting BL
designs make no sense in this regard.  Why should a ship that can control 4 
missiles with each of 5 MFDs (20 missiles) only control 5 in BR.  This
*never*
made any sense.  They made missiles *far* nastier in BR, but at the same time
madethem easier to kill---then they confused the MFD thing.  Yeesh.

As I said, Michael, it's gdw's fault :)

-Merrick

PS-I'd count the stored missiles some way regardless, maybe in []'s
M:20(12[8])
   or something (messy, but makes sense for small ships where missiles are
the
   main weapon)> 


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 20:36:28 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Defending against Big Lasers
Message-ID: <39@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

One of the main problems with big lasers is that they are actually much harder 
to defend against in TNE than meson guns (the 'unstoppables' of MT). If big 
lasers were developed, especially considering their devastating effects, then it 
seems likely that better defences against lasers would be developed as well. 
Sandcasters are fairly effective, and 10,000t range ships probably would carry 
a fair few, but here are some other ideas:

1/Sandcaster Bays -I'm not sure how much more effective these would be, but they 
should be better optimised for use of space, cutting down the amount of 
controlling hardware you need.

2/Fancy starship armour
    A/ Reflectors. I know that reflec was killed off in TNE, but the reasons for 
this were - it would be too crumpled to effectively reflect incoming lasers and 
the reflective surface would be destroyed by incoming laser fire too quickly for 
it to have any effect. I never really liked the idea of tin-foil suits anyway, 
but if your reflector was a big, rigid, carefully designed, thick, superdense
reflector, like a section of carefully designed starship hull, then maybe it 
would have some significant effect on lasers. It wouldn't require significant
volume or mass, perhaps a high-reflective coating over the hull - how reflective 
is superdense? The major problem in constructing it would be the cost of 
designing the reflector, and the extra quality control necessary in 
manufacturing the hull. The degree of protection afforded would depend on both 
the amount of money spent, and the tech level of construction. The reflector 
would probably give a fixed DV reduction to any incoming laser fire. Because of 
the cost it would probably only be used for selected parts of the ship, like
the 
front arc, which would put an emphasis on tactical maneuver which I quite
like. 
Who knows, by TL16, maybe you could try reflecting incoming fire back at the 
attacker.
    B/ Ablat. Another MT loss, this might be considered, but I don't think that 
it would be very effective against starship lasers, simply because the short 
pulses wouldn't give time for the material to ablate much.  

Finally, even if PA fire doesn't penetrate armour well, it does leave much 
larger, more untidy craters in the hull plating than laser fire. Enough PA 
damage, and even if none of it penetrated, then the hull would be so
pockmarked 
that the streamlining would be ruined. Probably not a problem for really big 
ships with fuel shuttles though (just as long as your fuel shuttles aren't 
ambushed).

-- 
Brendan 


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 19:01:25 
From: jamesd@spirit.com.au (James Dempsey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: New Fusion/Plasma rules
Message-ID: <20e567fe.32811-jamesd@loki.spirit.com.au>


>  could someone post them if GDW woulden't mind(copyright and the like)?

Courtesy of David Golden, I have just added them to the FAQ. The URL
is http://www.spirit.com.au/~jamesd

They were posted here in January, and are probably a bit big (25K in HTML
format) to post again.


 James Dempsey
-------------------------------------
 jamesd@spirit.com.au
 j.dempsey@student.anu.edu.au



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 12:42:58 +0100
From: HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: re: Fuel air explosives (FAE)
Message-ID: <95062812425881@newvax.ntu.ac.uk>

Peter McNae said:

>I've been reading the David Drake book "The Sharp End" which is about 
>Hammers Slammers. At one point in the story one of the troopers uses what is

>referred to as a Bunker Buster grenade. Basically a fuel-air explosive
grenade.

>This got me thinking of how effective such a weapon would be. As well as the

>bigger sized versions that were used during the gulf war.

>Anybody done any work on these? Or have any ideas?


Fuel Air Explosives are a very devastating weapon. SAS troops during the Gulf
War were witness to such devices being used, and one was quoted as thinking
that a low yield tactical nuclear device had been used.

The main ingredient of FAE is ethylene oxide which mixes with air and is
detonated with a relatively small explosive charge. FAE has more or less
replaced Napalm in more modern inventories. It is seen as being more 'humane'
than napalm. When an FAE weapon is released, the ethylene oxide is sprayed
from the delivery system (bomb) rapidly into an area, say 50m across for a
1000-lb bomb, rapidly mixing with the air. This would take a full combat turn
at least. Next turn, the cloud would detonate. There would be massive 
concussion effect in the detonation area. FAE weapons are not designed to
produce a fragmentary blast effect although the destruction of targets could
generate fragments. The ground over pressure is immense and would set off any
mines in the area.
	This is one reason why the US and British military have the Viper
system on combat engineering vehicles. Viper is a rocket fired over a 
known or suspected minefield trailing a 'cable' behind it. FAE is ejected from
the cable, the rocket, and explosive charge contained within the cable detonate
and massive overpressure results in destruction of all mines in a path 20 or
so meters across.

FAE is far more effective than regular HE compounds. In TNE, FAE would be
approximately upper TL-7/ lower TL-8. I don't think that a grenade could be
used as a suitable delivery system. Grenades would not easily be able to
deliver the amount of gas required. At higher TL, then this becomes more
reasonable, due to extra compression or something like that??
I would rate FAE as at least twice as powerful conventional HE warheads.

I havn't created any home rules for FF&S for these devices....yet.

Please let me have any comments or flames which you may have.



I'm basically new to this board, and i would be grateful if someone would mail
me the info on how to include previous messages other than by long hand
editing?

Cheers


********************************************************************************
No sig yet, but working on it............

Paul Radford 'Lynx'
Department of Immunology
Queens Medical Centre
Nottingham 
UK

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 17:07:16 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Big Lasers (Td#328)
Message-ID: <9506282107.AA14965@qrc.com>

bonnevil@flipper.itlabs.umn.edu (Steven Bonneville) wrote:
> [using the corrected figures]
>
> TL12 250-GJ PAWS Spinal Mount
> -----------------------------
> Length:  500 meters
> Volume:  62650 kL   Mass: 125110 metric tons
> Power:    6944 MW   Crew:      1
> Price: MCr 639
> Surface Area: 0.533 sq. meters
> 10:2500  20:625  40:156  80:39
> 
> TL12 250-GJ Laser Lance, 3.5 m lens dia.
> ----------------------------------------
> Volume:  64873 kL   Mass: 127366 metric tons
> Power:    6944 MW   Crew:      1
> Price:  MCr 862
> Surface Area:  9.6 sq. meters
> 10:1/400-1250  20:1/100-312  40:1/25-78  80:1/6-19 

A couple of things to note immediately: even at TL-12, capital ships are
going to have a _lot_ of armor.  The TL-14 Azhanti High Lightning FF&S
design that was done on TNE-Pocket had an armor factor over 1000; even
a TL-12 battleship should have armor somewhere between 500 and 1000
points.  A TL-15 battleship (or rider!) should be able to come up with
some 1000 to 2000 points of armor.

This makes the laser a _lot_ more attractive.  Assuming that a battleship
has 750 points of armor at TL-12 (and I'm not sure how feasable this is, but
particularly for a half-million-ton or heavier ship designed around one of
these weapons, it's probably not out of the realm of possibility), then the
ship is _safe_ from the PA-Gun at 1.1 light-seconds or more.

At less than 4% more volume, and only 35% more cost, the laser is
practically a bargain!

If identical battleships were built to this general design, the Laser-armed
version of the ship could be getting effective damage (48 points inside the
armor, per shot) at 40 hexes, increasing to 304 points/shot at 20 hexes,
while the PA-Gun-armed ship couldn't penetrate.  This hurts.  Assuming that
the PA-Gun-armed ship managed to survive this to close to 10 hexes (and we
were assuming ships of otherwise identical design, so this is unlikely), the
PA gun would be getting the same damage through the target's armor as the
laser would.  At this point, the early hits by the laser, or dumb luck with
critical hits, would decide the outcome.

A laser with better range performance could be built, and could literally
slice a ship to ribbons at long range, and (although it'd be large and
expensive), multiple trainable lasers would be possible as well - and might
have some advantages, if you wanted to build a large battleship.

Signficantly longer (total length of more than 900m) PA-Guns and meson guns
aren't possible - there's no hull that could mount one (although they'd
have some attraction as deep meson gun sites).  To give everyone an idea of
the size of battleships that we're talking about, here's a table that
summarizes minimum ship size options for 250m and 500m spinal weapons.
For battle riders, in particular, the large lasers have the additional
attraction of not requring a ship of a certain size just to be long enough
to contain the weapon (the 500m-long particle accellerator, for example,
isn't very useful for a rider design).

1a.  Spinal Mount Length = 250m
     Possible Ship Types Table 
       Needle = 250/3 = 83.3m  -->  30,000 tons std, 276m
       Wedge = 250/2.5 = 100m  -->  40,000 tons std, 250m (drop in!)
       Cylinder = 250/2 = 125m -->  70,000 tons std, 250m (drop in!)
       Box = 250/1.25 = 200m   --> 300,000 tons std, 250m (drop in!)
       Sphere = 250/1 = 250m   --> 600,000 tons std, 250m (drop in!)
       Disk = 250/1.25 = 200   --> 300,000 tons std, 250m (drop in!)
       Close = 250/1.75 = 143m --> 200,000 tons std, 297.5m
       Slab = 250/2.75 = 90.9m -->  30,000 tons std, 253m

1a.  Spinal Mount Length = 500m
     Possible Ship Types Table
       Needle = 500/3 = 166.7m    --> 200,000 tons std; 510m
       Wedge = 500/2.5 = 200m     --> 300,000 tons std, 500m (drop in!)
       Cylinder = 500/2 = 250m    --> 600,000 tons std, 500m (drop in!)
       Close = 500/1.75 = 285.7m  --> 900,000 tons std, 507.5m
       Slab = 500/2.65 = 181.8m   --> 300,000 tons std, 550m

Note about Possible Ship Types Table:

According to the rules for PA-Guns and M-Guns, "The length of the spinal
mount is equal to the length of the ship (in meters), defined during the
spacecraft hull design step.  Spacecraft with an open frame hull form may
not have a spinal mount."  FF&S, pp112 and FF&S pp116. 

Given this rule, the above M-Gun and PA-Gun may _only_ be mounted in ships
that have a the correct overall length; thus the "Possible Ship Types" table.

I've listed the smallest "standard" hull that has at least enough length
for the design presented.  To avoid interpolating from the hull table (which
is not supported by the rules, and would therefore probably be illegal for
tournament play), the weapons should be re-designed to the lengths given
in the table.  Since these are close (slightly greater than) the design
length of the weapon, the changes should not alter the overall performance
much.  The notation (drop in!) indicates that the hull is an exact fit for
the weapon as designed.

> The particle accelerator also has an advantage in the
> damage value it delivers against lightly armored ships; if the ship
> has an armor factor of roughly half or less of the PAWS's DV, the 
> PAWS does more damage than the laser. 

This is what escorts are for.  :-)  I can see the logic to designing some
type of special-purpose ship with a large particle accellerator for
delivering large amounts of damage against lightly-armored ships, space
stations, and installations on airless worlds. 

However, it would seem to make sense that these ships would be relatively
unarmored (meaning armor values under 500), with faster maneuver performance
and/or better jump performance, and either a wide varity of planetary
bombardment and deadfall ordinance (for use against worlds with an
atmosphere), or a large contingent of marines and drop capsules.  

I'd call such vessels "Strike Cruisers" and try to employ them in ways
suggested by their specialized design - as commerce raiders, escorts for
convoys, perhaps a few as screening forces for fleets of conventional
warships, and certainly assign them to the reduction of planets where local
space superiority had already been established by battle fleets.  They
probably shouldn't stand in the line of battle unless there were absolutely
no other choice - a normal ship-of-the-line would cut them to ribbons at
long range.

> With the ease of improving the PAWS range performance in a more optimal
> design, this weapon might be surprisingly formidable at tech-12.

The laser range performance can be improved considerably, too.  I don't
think that the problem is that the PA-Gun would be ineffective, but that the
laser would be _more_ effective.  I'm unsure how possible battleriders are
at TL-12, but at higher TLs, PA-Gun armed battleships would be severely
challenged by laser-armed battleriders.

> The disadvantages of the PAWS, worse penetration and the length
> requirement, still exist, but the possibility of extended range and
> high ROF at a substantial cost savings might make the PAWS a bit
> more attractive than people think, if you aren't going after heavily
> armored targets like deep-site meson guns.  If you want lasers too,
> laser bays are quite nice, and make a good replacement for the fusion
> bays of yore. 

If the deep meson gun site is situated appropriately, a PA-Gun isn't going
to be able to reach it - there are a few kilometers of solid rock in the
way, with an armor value that the PA-Gun won't be able to penetrate.  A
large laser might, though.  _HOW_ many meters of rock can a 1/800-2500
laser penetrate?

wildstar@quark.qrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical 
                           competence on the part of the writer, he genuinely
                           believes it could happen." --- John W. Campell,
Jr.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 11:37:11 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ship Crews (Td#330)
Message-ID: <9506281537.AA11595@qrc.com>

goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden) wrote:
> I'm still trying to figure out what positions those special bridge workstations
> (twice as large as normal ones!) are. The ones for maneuver, sensor and weapons
> crews are obvious. But I'm still trying to figure out the other 11. To show what
> I'm talking about, here's the crew breakout:
> 
> 11 Command (CC, XO, ???...)
> 2 Maneuver (pilot & astrogator)
> 3 Electronics (handling 4 commos and 4 sensors)
> 20 Gunnery (8 sandcaster turrets, 10 MFDs and 2 meson screen crew)
> 39 Engineering
> 7 Maintenance
> 1 Steward
> 1 Medical
> 
> Of these, 26 are "bridge" workstations: 11 command, 2 maneuver, 3
electronics 
> and 10 MFD.

OK, here's my take on it; IMHO, the "command" crew require a bit of
imagination in otder do get them all doing something useful.  As a general
rule of thumb, there should be a supervisory station on the bridge for
each 10 crew (approximately).  So, skimming down the crew list, I see a
need for 2 gunnery supervisors, and 4 engineering supervisors.  Plus,
we always need a station for the captain, communications, and computer or
analysis functions.  Since this seems to be a warship, analysis makes
more sense than a computer operator, and we should add enough stations
to make a combat information center: perhaps a tactical officer and
someone to manage the sensor data.

Here's that final breakdown on the bridge crew:
2 maneuver (helm and astrogation)
3 electronics
10 master fire directors
11 command (captain, first, second, third, and fourth officers,
  communications and sensor officers, first, second, and third engineers,
  and a damage control officer.  These folks man the following stations:
  Commander, Tactical Officer, Fire Control Officer, Defense Officer,
  Communications Officer, Sensor Officer, Analysis Desk, Maneuver Engineering
Monitor, Power Engineering Monitor, Cheif Engineer, Damage Control Officer).

Commander - Manned by ship's commanding officer, or by the Duty Officer when
  the captain is not on the bridge.  Primarily supervisory; this station can
  monitor any bridge station, and has pickups and controls for intership and
  intraship communications (voice and video).
  Quote: "Lieutenanat, put B deck on audio.  This is the captain speaking
..."
Tactical Officer - Manned by ship's tactical officer (usually the XO) only
  when ship is on alert status or at battle stations.  Recieves and presents
  information from sensors, fire control, and analysis stations in such a
  way that the captain and tactical officer get "the big picture".
  Quote: "The enemy is displaying two-dimensional thinking and a lack of
    situational awareness.  I recommend ..."
Fire Control Officer - Manned by ship's fire control officer (usually the 2nd
  or 3rd officer) only when ship is on alert or at battle stations.  Station
  can monitor any of the MFD's, turrets, or screens workstations; FCO
  assigns targets to individual battery contrllers (MFD's or turret gunners)
  and coordinates offensive fire.
  Quote: "All HPG banks charged and standing by to fire."
Defense Officer - Manned by the ship's defense or security officer (usually
  the 2nd or 3rd officer, but by no means always).  Station can monitor any
  of the MFDs, turrets, or screens workstations, Defense Officer assigns
  targets to individual battery controllers (MFD's or turret gunners) and
  coordinates defensive fire.
Communications Officer - Manned at all times when ship is not in jumpspace
  (note that electronics consoles may not be manned at all times).  Controls
  and routes intership and intraship communications, generally the first
  point of contact for any communication to the bridge; can monitor or
  override any function controlled by the electronics consoles.
  Quote: "The captain of the alien vessel is hailing us."
Sensor Officer - Manned at all times when ship is not in jumpspace (note
  that electronics consoles may not be manned at all times).  Controls
  and coordinates sensor usage, and preliminary analysis of results; can
  monitor or override any function controlled by the electronics consoles.
  Quote: "Three bogies - bearing 45 mark 17, range 8.0, course 12 mark 3."
Analysis Desk - Manned by the analysis or computer officer (4th officer, or
  on survey ships by the science officer).  On warships, manned during alert
  or battle stations (though the captain may elect to man this station _much_
  more frequently than that, particularly on survey missions).  Performs
  detailed analysis of sensor data, including target recognition, data
lookup,
  and computer operations.
  Quote: "Drive emissions match Zhodani "Zeke" class escorts.  Missile
    armed, plus a single laser turret.  Better accelleration that we've
    got, but shorter fuel endurance."
Maneuver Engineering Monitor - Manned whenever the ship is not in jump, by
  an engineering officer (3rd engineer, usually).  Monitors health and
  performance of maneuver drive, including fuel usage.
  Quote: "I'm giving her all she's got sir - we can only keep this up
    for another 20 minutes before the drive goes into thermal shutdown."
Power Engineering Monitor - Manned at all times, by an engineering officer
  (usually by rotation between the 2nd and 3rd engineers, and the damage
  control officer).  Monitors the health and status of the ship's power
  plant, power plant fuel, and power distribution grid (failure of any
  of these systems will kill everyone aboard within a matter of hours).
  Quote: "I don't have enough power, Captain."
Chief Engineer - manned by the Chief (first) Engineer, whenever the
  ship is on alert or battle stations, or is preparing for a jump.  Monitors
  the status of the ship's systems; used by the cheif engineer to coordinate
  activities by the engineering crew.
  Quote: "Stand by for jump drive sequencing."
Damage Control Officer - manned by an engineering officer when the
  ship is on alert or battle stations.  Monitors the overall status
  of the ship, directs and coordinates damage control parties.
  Quote: "Minor damage on B and C decks, sir."

For a bridge this size, I'd break it up a bit, basically place it on two
decks.  The upper deck is the actual "bridge", and would contain the
helm and astrogation positions, as well as the captian, the communication
and sensor positions as well as the engineering stations (maneuver, power,
cheif engineer, and damage control).  The lower deck would be the "combat
information center", and would contain the MFD's, electronics operators,
analysis desk, fire control officer, and tactical officer.

In normal operations, the combat information center would not be manned;
the workstations that are normally manned are on the bridge (which would
have at least two people in it at all times - the duty officer and the
power engineering monitor).  When an alert was called, people would move
to their action stations and both the bridge and CIC would be manned.

For combat purposes, it's all one bridge, but for role-play and for design
purposes, it's been divided into combat and non-combat functions (it's
worth noting that if you delete all of the ship's weapons and the people
that operate them, almost everyone in the CIC goes away).  It might make
sense to have the sensor officer in the CIC, but that means that station
is _not_ on the bridge (and is the only station in CIC manned) during routine
operations.

> Well, what are all these command people doing on the bridge? If I've got
the
> Duty Officer (or whatever) and the CO on deck, why do I also need the
second,
> third, fourth, etc. officers? What are they doing, fetching coffee and
donuts?
> To me full crew for combat would mean the helmsman, all sensor, commo and
ECM
> operators, gunners, and the CO or whoever is running the thing. OK, so you
> need someone to monitor engineering as well. The only other job I could
think
> of is coordinating damage control parties.

In the scenario I outlined above, the XO is busy keeping the tactical
situation in his head (and on the screen in front of him).  His job is to
be aware of what's going on, and give the captain recommendations.

The second officer is running the Fire Control station, he's looking
at the available targets that the captain wants to hit, and handing
them off to the indivudal gunners (the gunners are too busy, concentrating
on their individual targets, to effectively look around - besides, there
are 8 turret gunners, 10 MFD gunners, and 2 screens operators - if they
were all on one big party circuit, trying to communicate, it'd be
clogged with chatter).

The third officer is doing the same thing for known threats (missiles,
laser-armed ships, and so on), and making sure he doesn't step on
the second officer's toes.

The fourth officer will be running the analysis desk, retrieving recognition
data from the computer, and providing data to the tactical officer and fire
control officers.

> I hate to think what I'm going to go through trying to figure out the
actual
> crew composition for my next project, which will be something in the 10,000
> Td size range! Thanks for the inputs.

Take a look at the design for the Azhanti High Lightning (Suppliment 5);
there are a number of good suggestions for bridge crew on that ship - it
was originally a High Guard design, and required a fairly large bridge.

wildstar@quark.qrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical 
                           competence on the part of the writer, he genuinely
                           believes it could happen." --- John W. Campell,
Jr.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:08:21 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ship Crews
Message-ID: <sff13839.030@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

David J. Golden (and others) writes:

>I also don't understand why a ship only needs one pilot and one 
>astrogator regardless of size. Doesn't anybody have shifts anymore?
>You certainly can't keep your pilot on duty 24 hrs a day.

   Which is why I see the crew requirements as being the *minimum*
required to run the ship without mechanical assistance (droids, etc.).
Below that level and your efficiency starts to drop off.  How many extra
you want to carry depends on your ship's mission and space
restrictions.  Armed merchant vessels will have gunners, but not enough
to keep someone in the MFD chair 24 hours a day while out of jump.  On
a warship this would be an absolute necessity.  On large warships,
shifts could be staggered to reduce the number of people actually
required to run things.  It depends on how detailed you want to get.

>        OK. But I'm still trying to figure out what positions those special
>bridge workstations (twice as large as normal ones!) are. The ones for
>maneuver, sensor and weapons crews are obvious. But I'm still trying
>to figure out the other 11.

   On a large warship, the bridge crew I came up with (after watching
more Star Trek episodes than should be considered healthy):

Captain
Self-explanatory

Executive Officer 
"Number One", etc.  On mid-sized ships, this person may also be the
Damage Control Coordinator (especially if space is a problem and people
and "doubling up" on duties).  Also can act as chief of staff for the
captain, taking reports from the various department heads and digesting
them down into something the captain can use.

Astrogator
Someone to make the jump to the next star, etc. work.  May also have
other duties assigned (such as Senior Gunnery Officer) on mid-sized
ships where space can be a problem.

Helmsman
Or helmsperson, pilot, whatever....someone to steer the ship between
jumps.  Can also take over as Astrogator in an emergency.

Communications Officer
Responsible for coordinating all the ship's commo traffic.  A bigger
job than it would initially appear.

Science Officer 
There are things in space that are dangerous besides vampire ships....
This person is a scientific expert who is familiar with ship's operations
and what natural phenomenon can do to a space vessel.

Security Chief
Or ship's troops commander--the bridge would be the best place to
monitor the action.  Would also be responsible for boarding actions,
landing parties, etc.

Senior Gunnery Officer
Aka Tactical Operations Officer.  The person in charge of all those
people sitting at the MFDs.  This is also the person the captain yells at
which he/she wants their weapons fired.  Note that this person doesn't
actually fire any weapons, just signals the crews to fire, raise shields,
etc.

Senior Computer Officer
Responsible for monitoring the status of the ship's three main computers
and any others that might be on board.  Sends technicians out to fix
any computer related glitches that might crop up in areas outside of
engineering.  In the NE, also probably an expert on Virus and Virus
behavior.

Engineering Technicians - 2ea.
Monitor the status of the ship's drives, life support, and other vital
functions from the bridge area and relay any important information to
the captain or XO.  Not *absolutely* necessary, but helpful especially if
the guys in engineering are a bit busy (and can't come to the phone just
then).  Also, engineering could *theoretically* be run from here in an
emergency if there is sufficient automation.

Chief Sensor Operations Officer
Responsible for telling the captain what's out there.  Filters the crap
the scared kid running the passive sensors picks up and gives the
captain the info he/she needs to know.  Would probably work closely
with the Chief Gunnery Officer and Science Officer (on mid-sized
vessels, the CSO and the Sci Officer or Gunnery Officer would likely 
be one person who would monitor both stations).

Maintenance Chief
The person responsible for sending out damage control parties where
necessary.  Coordinates all efforts to keep the ship functioning and
reports to the captain or XO what's going on.  Probably a member of the
engineering crew, who resides on the bridge.

Miscellaneous Other
The MFDs can also be on the bridge, or in a separate location (I have
a vague recollection this was the case in Trek, old series).  Any of
the above positions could be combined in some fashion and additional
command crew put in place.  For example, if the ship carries as part
as its complement psionically gifted individuals (as in ST:NG), they might
be of assistance to the captain during normal operations (see ST:NG for
examples).  You may decide that the Chief Engineer's place is on the
bridge (taking up one of the above slots in addition to his/her other
duties).  This is handy is you are the captain and you want to take your
XO, Chief Medical Officer, and a few sacrificial security guards down
to a hostile planet to show 'em who's boss (not that any captain has
done this in the past  :-)  ).  

>Is it safe to assume the line officers have flight skills, so they act as
>backups?

   I would want all my bridge crew to be able to steer the ship long
enough until someone more qualified can take charge.  This was 
certainly the case on Trek, old series, where even Uhura got to sit in
the pilot's seat once (if only briefly).  Then again, the Federation didn't
believe in seat belts either, so the crew got tossed around a bit,
and anyone was likely to end up next to the "steering wheel".  :-)

>        I'm also leaning towards a declaration that when FF&S says you
>need so many workstations, that's just a way of estimating volume
>requirements, and you wouldn't actually have that many workstations
>as shown on a deck plan.

   The stations requirement is the stations requirement, and unless you
want to run a variant campaign, or come up with some negative
modifiers for not having enough bridge stations, you're SOL.

   Not all crew stations would necessarily be manned at all times,
but it is assumed that they are all necessary for the ship to work at
maximum effectiveness (particularly on large vessels with many
systems to monitor).  The extra space requirements for bridge
workstations allow for areas where the crew can hold meetings
away from the immediate work area so that they don't interfere with
ship's operations.  I see no reason why there couldn't be a Ready Room/
Conference Room adjacent to the bridge included in the design, even
with the full complement of bridge workstations.


--Harold




------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 331
***************************



----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Wed Jun 28 21:56:26 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by emin04.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA130060986; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 21:56:26 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id VAA21922; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 21:41:36 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 21:41:36 -0400
Message-Id: <199506290141.VAA21922@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 331
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

