| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit |
Really, the article does solve the issue. There are various specialty types of Replicators but the basic tech is the same for all of them so with proper programming they can do the basic jobs of the other. No real way around that logically.
There is many reasons why replicators don'tthreaten Trade and Comerce and while programs cost money (for many reasons) that's not the reason. Programs can be patenented but you cannot stop someone from making their own or scanning something and making a copy.
Even the companies that make products that might be copied in this way are not overly concerned twith their products being replicated because of the inherrent lack of quality in the replicated piece.
Now, appearance wise to you and me a replicated work isn't going to be a waste. It WILL function (and probably well) for you imediate needs but you don't want to gamble your life on it if possible and you will need to replace it sooner than later. Overall the quality of a replicated piece isn't going to be an issue for a single scenario.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 10:32 pm: Edit |
Some time ago, I posted a crew list for a Fed POL (I'm not going to re-post it ... if you want to see it, click here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/16/5856.html?ThursdayNovember2020031014am#POST136866)
I got thinking about it again, as I was trying to figure out a duty rotation, and I have come to the conclusion that it's inaccurate.
SVC degreed in an e-mail conversation I had with him a while back that the POL is -NOT- a Star Fleet ship, that's it's run entirely by the Federation Police Force, and it therefore does not have Federation / Star Fleet Marines onboard. The BPs are Police Tac-Teams. (I wish he had told me that before I got so deep into the story I'm writing becasue I have a Marine detachment on it ... rather then rip out a huge chunk of the story line, I just explained it away as an "experiment".)
The thing is, when you take 17 crew out of the 98 I have listed, plus the 9 shuttle deck crew, that leaves you with "only" 72 crew to run the ship 24/7. Beleive it or not, that's simply not enough people.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that, unlike Star Fleet, the Police crews are less specilized in their jobs and must multi-task more. In Navy terms, they are cross-rated (or is it cross-trained??). In other words, a crewman might be certified in running the phasers and/or refueling the shuttle and/or operating the tractors/transporters, etc, etc. All very much like the wooden ships days, where the whole crew could work the sails and/or man the guns and do whatever needed to be done. The all-around sailor.
This would give you the extra 17 bodies you need to fill out a 24/7 duty schedule to keep the ship running. When the ship goes to General Quarters / Red Alert, those not on-duty are on-call to pull Tac-Team / Shuttle Deck / Damage Control duties, as those are the three areas that don't need to be fully manned in non-combat situations. (The other option is that the ship pulls over for the night and turns out the lights, with just a skeleton crew manning the bridge and engineering in case "something" happens. With this new thought process, I do beleive I shall have to mention that the "put Marines on Police boats" is a "failed experiment" in the story I'm writing.)
The down side, from a GURPS perspective, Police Force characters will need to have a wider spectrum of skill that must be bought, leaving less points for the player to spend on "electives".
Comments??
Garth L. Getgen
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 08:56 pm: Edit |
Garth, I'm confused by your comments. I see enough crew to operate 24/7. The only place I see an immediate problem is that there is no third shift shuttle pilot (I'm not sure what #81 is supposed to be, so maybe that person is/can be the third pilot).
There is probably a prime shift (with many of the maitenance people and specialists). But I see people to cover all key departments for 3 shifts. I'm thinking something like 50% on prime shift, 30% on second shift and 20% on third shift (or perhaps 25%/25% for those two shifts). Also, many of the specialists might be staggered with overlap over first and second shift (either their shift hours or the assignment to specific shifts). Specialists are probably "on call" for extended hours. Obviously major, non-time critical, activities (eg gathering a convoy) are probably scheduled to occur during prime shift.
Maybe I'm taking the listings too broadly in that I'm assuming that most of the individuals within a department are somewhat crosstrained (eg a gunner is a gunner and has a designated weapon, can run any/all of them on an emergency basis--see the article on the Klingon phaser room). And thus, the listing here is the combat/formal specialization (in particular, I'd assmue all the shuttle support crew can cover for each other for basic/routine ops, eg prepping the shuttle for a standard launch).
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 09:40 pm: Edit |
If the crew is divided into three shifts that can run the ship then during red alert all of the crews goes to work there should be enough.
It may well be that one of the shifts might not do much more than monitor the ships functions and the main shift, maybe call it the Command Shift, is the one that carries out the serious maintenance and such. The Second shift does work the command shift has ordered it to do.
Shift size might be disproportionate.
| By William F. Hostman (Aramis) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:01 pm: Edit |
Garth: following is IMO...
In general, each shift should be able to maintain routine operations. Each shift should be able to operate the phasers (A phaser team on duty at all times). Each shift must have a Helm and Nav team on duty, and at least one officer on deck.
Engineering's WD Techs: are four really needed? One should probably be a PO1... and one should be a PO3...
Labs and shuttles really need only one full staff shift.
I think you've got the crewing on the phasers a little high.
(I think 2 guys per weapon, with the seniors spread amongst them, would cover it. As in: Phaser mount 1 has the FC1 and GM1, Phaser Mount 2 has the FC3 and a GM3, Phaser mount three has a FC2 and a GM 3, and Photon A has a GM2 and FC3.
Nominal crewing then becomes one mount manned per shift. A shift is Ph#1, B is Ph#2 and Phot, C is Ph#3... adding the ordinanceman for the Tbomb is a bit supercillious, but if truly needed, add him to A shift.
On the refit, add another PO2 and PO3, rather than PO1/PO2 for phasers, and use the extant ordinance man, and just a PO2/PO3 pair for FC and GM...
Put the COB in Engineering... or as a supernum, assigned not for his rate, but his expertise and ability to lead and to oversee training.
This would give just a bit extra space for some other uses. having 2 PO2 instead of a PO2 and PO3 seems a bit wrong. (I realize, sometimes, in the fleet, it works out that way.) Also, the lack of e2's(Appr) and e3's (Able) is troublesome.
Which gets me thinking:
Perhaps you should lower the ranks for all the weaponsmen one...
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:20 pm: Edit |
David, the #81 is a junior enlisted crewman, just as are numbers 17, 18, 26, 45, 46, 57, 59, and 64 ... apprentices who learned the basic of their jobs at tech school and are now being mentored by the petty officers.
As to the shift rotations, I made sure I had three bridge teams to cover all the shifts and also cover all the control stations during combat. But when I was trying to work out the "night" shift for the rest of the ship, I kept coming up short.
I can make the "day" shift the maintenence shift, so the DamCon team works most days. But they can go to minimum manning for the "night" crew ... they are on patrol 24/7 and must be manned well enough to perform standard frighter boardings & inspections and other such missions.
I may have built that into the crew list somehow when I drafted it, but as I can't find my notes anymore, I don't remember what I was thinking when I came up with the list. Whatever it was, I'm not seeing it now. {shrug} Maybe it'll become clear again after I sleep on it.
Garth L. Getgen
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:23 pm: Edit |
Based on what's been published elsewhere, it seems that in SFB it requires an average of about 3 individuals per weapon when counting officers and oversight positions (see the phaser control room in particular).
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 08:53 am: Edit |
for the Klingons, yes, about 3, but the Feds use fewer as they trust their gunners more.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 04:45 pm: Edit |
David, Petrick told me to go with two per Phaser and three or four per Photon. I bent that rule slightly because I only provided two Phaser crew for the 2xPh-3 addition, but I figure I could swipe a crewman from the Photon crew. Still bending the rule some.
As to the shift rotations, I think I know what I did wrong. I was trying to do three 8-hour shifts per day and found I didn't have enough in the engine room. What I must have been thinking is they pull 12-hour shifts down there. Actually, everyone pulls 12 hour shifts, but most put 8 or 6 hours at their duty location and the other 4 or 6 doing routine maintenence or additional training, etc.
Still, my idea of making the FPF crew less specialized make sense. I'm just tossing ideas into the ring, and if SVC likes any of them, he'll pick them up. 
Garth L. Getgen
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 05:32 pm: Edit |
Garth, sorry, my comment on weapon crews was aimed at William (I think there are plenty of weapons crewbeings on the ship).
As far as the engineering, if one assumes the "Warpdrive Reactor Chief" is engineering watch qualified (I'd expect it for the Feds) then you have sufficient engineers for the a full 3 watches. If engineering watch really needs an officer, change #45 to the third engineering officer (or perhaps a "cadet/ensign" who is nominally in charge but with the chief the real authority on the watch). If you want to not have the chief engineer from standing watch, maybe make either #34 or #37 a chief (which varying with the ship) with watch leading duties. Or assume that one of them (as a PO1) handles the routine duties on the Chief Engineer's watch.
With 4 BP, one can be on duty each shift (assuming 8 hours) to give you boarding capabilities. I'm not sure who would normally do inspections, so I can't help you there, although there should be enough bridge crew to send someone with the BP.
Assuming 12 hour shifts would also work, but would the enlisted men really put up with that for months on end? (I'm assuming that like other shift work there is at least an extra hour or more per shift to have smooth transitions).
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:34 pm: Edit |
I think you'll find the watches are in fact.
Civlian vessels and peace time opperation:- 3 shifts of four hours opperating twice daily.
Wartime military opperations:- 4 shifts of three hours opperating twice daily.
Not every watch will have as many staff as others.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:44 pm: Edit |
RE: shift rotations ... what I would like to accomplish is five 12-hour shifts, one 8-hour shift and one day off per week, if possible. That's where I had a problem with the Engineering crew. I think I need one more crewman, perhaps a PO1, as another Warp Tech.
That's pretty much what I did in Saudi for 120 days. When I was in Korea, we had four teams working 3x12 hour shifts either days or nights, then three off. At the end of the month, we'd swap from days to night or vice versa. In Pakistan, I had three people to run a 24/7 shop and was told I had a choice of 4-&-2 or 2-&-1 x 12-hour shifts, flipping days/nights each rotation. We opted to work 92 x 8-hour shifts with no days off instead.
My wife is in the Navy (rather: was -- she just retired last month), but never served on a ship. But from what I gather in talking to her cohorts that did, they don't really expect a day off while at sea.
Regarding "an extra hour for shift change" ... no, not really. Five to ten minutes is usually enough. When I was in Korea, we would have a fifteen-twenty minute stand-up brief from the person that analyzed the charts, then go around the room for each person to give a two-three minute brief on their products ... all in all, about a twenty to thirty minute hand off for a seven-man team.
RE: CoB ... well, my list shows him in Weapons, but any of the Chiefs could be the CoB. For that matter, one of the PO1s in the Ops section (Bridge/Sensors/etc) could be bumped up to a Chief's slot and become CoB. There's some of flex built into that list. I plan on explanding it for the FF -- which will have much more flex, I should think.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 02:07 am: Edit |
Garth,
A Boatswain's mate rate used to be a command rate (I would think should be part of the bridge crew). A damage control (DC) CPO should run DamCon. An MCPO would be an appropriate assitant engineer to a JG. Could also be chief of the boat (cutter). You could also run a port and starboard watch (like a sub) rather than the traditional 4 on 8 off watch rotation. Every seven days the watch is dogged. Each section moves to the next watch rotation (example 8-12 goe to the 12-4).
| By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 06:37 am: Edit |
Unless things have changed, in the REAL US Navy, underway watches are four hours long, except for 1600-2000 which is broken into two watches 1600-1800 and 1800-2000. These two watches are called the dog watches.
This gives you an odd number of watches, so that you don't stand the same watch all the time and get one night uninterrupted sleep every four days.
In a smaller ship, you'll get woken up for watch 15-30 minutes before your watch starts. Earlier in big ships like CVs where it takes you a lot of time to get from the berthing compartment to your watch station.
Bos'ns Mates have not been a command rate since the Navy got rid of sails. To be precise, bos'n is short for boat-swain, in the modern Navy is an E4 (BM3), and during WWII and Korea was in command of a landing craft.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:34 am: Edit |
From the Bluejackt's Manual (12th edition), the Boatswain's Mate are "expert seamen who maintain the ship, serve as steersmen, take command of tugs and other small craft, serve as gun captains, look after rigging, paint, handle and care for deck equipment, and serve on working parties and damage-control teams. BMs in upper grades train and supervise others in caring for and handling deck equipment and small boats."
As I view the shuttle craft as more akin to a helicopter and not a whale boat, I made the shuttle pilots "warrent officers" (like in the Army). Ergo, that duty no longer falls on the BM. Likewise, I have dedicated helmmen and weaponeers ... all that's left for the BM is general ship's mantenence.
None of this is set in Jell-O, let alone set in stone, until and unless SVC buys off on it. He may throw it out and come up with his own list.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 12:08 pm: Edit |
Star Fleet doesn't normally use WOs, Garth. I suppose an exception can be made for pilots, and we can mention it in GFed. But like you said, SVC has got to sign off on it.
As for that definition ... bah! I thought I was a sonar technician, but I've "chipped, painted, and preserved" about an acre of hull all told, been the helmsman during a typhoon (because I was one of the few spare hands who wasn't seasick), and NOBODY gets out of working parties without a good reason. I've also served as a rigger and as amidships rig captain during UnReps.
So I guess I'm a deck ape, and by that definition so is half the sailors in the Navy!
("Deck ape" is what we call bosuns when we want to be polite; they called us "ping jockeys".)
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 12:49 pm: Edit |
You know, I got thinking about that, and if I recall correctly, SVC says that Warrent Officers are civilian experts that are drafted for specific missions or projects. They're not officers but must have enough authority (ie, rank) to be able to give orders and direction to enlisted.
Personally, I don't see why certain jobs that require some significant level of technical traning (ie, shuttle pilots) could not also be Warrants. Also, the modern Navy has the Limited Duty Officer program in which selected enlisted (usually Chiefs and Chief-selects) are bumped up to Warrant or even Ensign and put in a technical/leadership role (ie, engineering), but they have limited carreer options, duty slots, and a hard-cap for how far they get promoted (unless further selected as a regular officer). This is what I believe Chief O'Brian on TNG/DS9 was.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 03:16 pm: Edit |
Garth: It doesn't really matter if you can't see why; the published data says that Federation warrant officers are civilians given temporary military rank, and that data is not subject to change. There are no warrant officers in the way you and I use the term.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 09:06 pm: Edit |
Well, if it's already published, that's all the reason "why" one needs.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 04:31 pm: Edit |
SVC: Shuttle pilots. They're obviously not Warrent Officers in SFU, but what are they?? Junior officers, Chiefs, or Petty Officers?? If enlisted, are they Boatswains or are they more specialized?? Thanks.
Also, regarding Warrents ... I knew you had posted that definition here, but I didn't know if it had been published on paper yet. If it hadn't been, I still had a shot at changing your mind (at least, attempting to), and I was just "thinking out loud" along those lines ... but as it's officially in print, I'll just mark that in the "LOST" column. {sigh}
Garth L. Getgen
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 09:13 pm: Edit |
I think you'll find they need to commissioned officers.
They are after all "commanding a vessel". If they fly into neutral territory, they need to be held accountable and saying, I'm just an N.C.O. I didn't get trained to deal with this sort of thing just won't cut the mustard. They will be held accountable for their actions by the neutral worlders.
Also what happens if this one fighter is the only craft to encounter a particular first contact. Someone on that craft needs to have the authority to deal with the situation and that means a commissioned officer.
That doesn't mean they need to be high ranking, just commissioned (GPD Pg48 O1 ENSIGN or higher).
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 09:20 pm: Edit |
That's fighter suttles.
Regular Admins probably would be assumed to never be far enough away from their ship to warrent needing a Commissioned Officer, except in rare curcumstances like he ship need to deliver an anti-viral drug to a plague planet and the shuttle is left orbiting a planet to aid the surface "away team" in surveying the planet...but in cases like that the survery team probably has a commissioned officer.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 11:04 am: Edit |
While almost all officers have shuttle pilot skill, the assigned shuttle pilots could be senior enlisted.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 03:51 pm: Edit |
Cool. Thanks. Flexibility, I like it.
Garth L. Getgen
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |