the New Ship

I thought the new ship should get a thread of its own. Here's the Spec Sheet. Feel free to contact on the sheet or here. I've just sent in our down payment of 20% (141,482,860). As of the moment, the estimated actual value of the finished ship should be: 935.847 MCr. We currently owe 580,079,726 Cr for the ship. These figures include all of the extras shown on the ship sheet, and are likely to change a bit as we nail down how much ordnance we bring over from Ares and settle on final price tags for the small craft. The final price tag will be pretty close, though.  The Estimated Delivery Date of the New Ship is 055-1111. We still need to name our new baby. We started discussing names, but with everything else that's been going on, that  got pushed to the back burner. My original working name was Apollo , put we've put many more on the table: Here's what we have so far: Asteria - Goddess of the stars and the last immortal to live with man Atalanta - A competitive warrior Goddess, adventurer and amazing runner. She was turned into a lion by Aphrodite. Athena - Goddess of war, wisdom and domestic crafts. She was one of the Olympian Goddesses Eos - The beautiful Goddess of the dawn who brings the hope of a brand new day. Maia - Spring Goddess and the eldest and most beautiful of Atlas's seven daughters who made up the Pleiades. Mnemosyne - The personification of memory in Greek mythology. She was also the mother of the Muses. Metis - Titan Goddess of wisdom and prudence. According to Myth Zeus swallowed the pregnant Metis whole and later gave birth to his daughter Athena from his head. Nike - The Greek Goddess of victory. Themis - Greek Goddess of divine justice, order and customs. She also had the gift of prophecy as she was responsible for the Oracle of Delphi before it was passed onto Apollo. Tenacious Techhunter said: “Themis” would be an excellent ship name to use in the fight against Maarg... “Nike” is good in general. “Eos” is good PR. “Athena” would work particularly well if we have fancy lab space. “Atalanta” should be saved for an interceptor ship of some kind... maybe a fighter craft? and Wolfen said: Oooo. I was thinking about names for an assault shuttle and just thought about another potential name for the cruiser: the Argo . As for the assault carrier, Atlas (tip o' the hat to Alby), Orpheus , Pegasus , Tyche , Soteria . (As well as some of the names listed above, for the cruiser). and Alby said: For names maybe it would be cool to have the shuttle named after the son/daughter of whatever god we name the Cruiser after? and Tenacious Techhunter said: Let’s name the “Pimped Out Limo” G-Carrier the Pegasus, and the Gritty and inevitably Grungy one that will be subjected to Wypoc will be called the Bucephalus. Both are “horses”, both fight; the latter was the “demon horse” of Alexander the Great. “Orpheus” would be better for a luxury liner. “Tyche” would be better as a disaster relief aid ship. “Soteria” is so defensive focused that we couldn’t pull it off convincingly enough; we’re just too eager to find asses to kick; it would be better as a “Belt Guard” (Space equivalent of “Coast Guard”?) system defense boat. “Atlas” is... complicated... the bogus “holding up the Earth” interpretation would peg us as Terra-centric. The association with maps would peg us as an exploration outfit. The “holding up the celestial sphere” interpretation would imply that we’re holding ourselves accountable for the safety of the known Galaxy, “Guardians of the Galaxy” style... and while a fun thought, it’s more responsibility than we’re actually up to. Not to mention how readily dismissed the whole archaic “celestial sphere” concept would be among people having first-hand experience on how non -spherical space is

I forgot where I said it, but I proposed the name Mars since that's the Roman god of war while Ares is the Greek god of War. If we keep to the names of god's or goddesses of war, violence, death, etc. It'll fit our theme of being a Merc ship.

Right you are. Thanks for bringing in up.

If had to choose right now, I'd vote for the Argo . How cool would it be to be able to call ourselves the Argonauts?

Itus : God of protection and security. In Ancient Greece, a young boy named ITUS was unmatched with his two swords. No mortal man could beat him and he dedicated everything to Apollo’s glory. Apollo became scared for his safety so he decided to find himself a protector. As protector, ITUS was awarded two swords, Xenios and Kurios. ITUS vowed on his life to protect Apollo until the day he died. As ITUS grew in age and wisdom, Apollo decided to make ITUS a god in order to prevent his protector growing old and dying. Zeus agreed to make ITUS a god. At first ITUS refused,as he didn’t think himself worthy. Apollo eventually persuaded ITUS thus becoming the god of Protection and Security. ITUS now spends his days protecting the innocent from those that would do them harm. He is said to have beaten Ares in a sword fight. EDIT: actually ... Itus may not be a god after all. Seems to be some kind of fan fic character. 

Damn it, Alby, stop coming up with great ideas that don’t work out!

How about “Adrasteia”; the Greek Goddess of Inescapable Divine Retribution against those who succumb to Hubris...

Or maybe “Pallas”; the Greek Titan of Warcraft.

In Roman mythology, Securitas was the goddess of security and stability, especially the security of the Roman Empire. Sounds more like a company name than the name of a ship though.  Soteria seems to be the greek goddess of the same thing, but I think she has already been mentioned. She was the goddess of salvation - or safety,deliverance, and preservation from harm. 

Oh ... AEGIS! Aegis isn't a god so much. It was the skin or shield used by Athena and Zeus.  "The modern concept of doing something "under someone's aegis " means doing something under the protection of a powerful, knowledgeable, or benevolent source. The word aegis is identified with protection by a strong force."

Aegis would work great for a new company name... It’s a bit more direct as the name of a Mercenary outfit than “Artemis”, which is more about hunting...

Hm. I hadn't really thought about changing the company name. I figured we'd just re-boot with the new company under the old name. That certainly doesn't have to be the case, however, and I like Aegis, too. 

Was just looking over the ship specs. Had a couple of questions/suggestions. (quegestions?) I noticed that we have 6 weeks worth of life support. Awesome, but could we get away with 4 weeks? That would score us an additional 24 dtons to play with.  Taking note of how doomed those pirates were once we scored a hit on their sensors, and that each hit provides a 4:36, or 1 in 9 chance of a sensor hit, maybe we need to armor ours up a bit? Armoured bulkheads take up a number of dtons equal to 10% the tonnage of the item they are protecting. Our current sensor suite weighs 9dtons, so 1dton would armour it up. This effectively negates the first hit they take in combat. Armoured bulkheads cost 0.2 Mcr per ton. (p41 High Guard). I think you could protect sensors with bulkheads?

Re: Sensor Hits  one could always purchase a secondary, redundant, backup system for same tonnage and price.

and then armor up the sensors.

Yeah, armoring 'em up is probably the way to go. I'll go in and change it.

Added Armored Bulkheads for the Sensors. I've also put a couple of extras back in: 2 Grappling Arms, 10 Probe Drones and 10 Escape Pods. Included the purchase of a new Air/Raft, figuring that either Isis or the Duchess will want the Colonel's Mid-Life Crisis more than we do. Brought the fuel stores back down to 1 jump-3 and 4 weeks to save the tonnage for above, and to gain a little more cargo space.

Or maybe Isis and the Duchess can “Thelma & Louise” it around for a while... Escape pods should be at the parts of the ship furthest away from the Shuttle, since that’s a perfectly good escape craft on its own. Escape pods cover how many people, again?

Generally I think they work "1 per stateroom" - so it sounds like a max of two per pod? Having a pod next to each stateroom would make sense. The quickest and easiest way for VIPs to escape a burning ship. Roll out of bed and straight into the pod. 

Strictly speaking, a Shuttle would always be a better option than an Escape Pod... Escape Pods are the option of last resort; where the Escape Pods are placed should be done accordingly.

For sure. I mean, if folks have the opportunity to make their way in an orderly fashion to the shuttle bay for evacuation then the shuttle is definitely our best option. It may be worth double checking to make sure the shuttle is capable of taking all hands on board at the same time.  But it may take a couple of minutes for pilots and passengers to scurry down ladders and across the ship into the shuttle. And then a while to fire up the cold power plant, and then, if the ship still has power to open the hanger bay doors, all will be well. But if the ship is in the process of exploding, or if it has been depressurized and you're stuck in your state room without a vacc suit ... I'm still thinking that each stateroom's pod should be adjacent to the stateroom. You could even make the pod the closet in which hangs the client's vacc suit. The pod is also a constant reminder to the client that we have arranged everything so that they are travelling with a maximum level of safety. 

Pakkrat says:  Closer to completion date of the Colonial Cruiser, changes to the New Ship will tack on extra time for modification.  This is especially true on the final month before she's ready for christening and launch.  Get all your kinks out of the design and settle on a final product before then.

Unless we're going to allow the passengers to have ready access to the shuttle, which I would be against, passengers should have access to escape pods from their staterooms. If they're in a common area when disaster strikes, ship's personnel can escort them to the shuttle if that's a better option.

Escape pods are only useful if you plan to have your ship explode around you

I guess the best escape plan includes planning not to need to escape? Just talking about the guns for a moment, we currently have this: Triple Turret (Pulse, Beam, Particle) Triple Turret (Pulse, Missile, Sand) Triple Turret (Pulse, Beam, Particle) Triple Turret (Missile, Missile, Sand) Triple Turret (Pulse, Beam, Particle) Triple Turret (Missile, Missile, Sand) Triple Turret (Pulse, Beam, Particle) Triple Turret (Pulse, Missiles, Sand) Triple Turret (Pulse, Beam, Particle) Triple Turret (Pulse, Beam, Particle) Rail Gun Barbette Particle Beam Barbette So in the turrets we have: 6x PAs 6x B-lasers 6x Missiles 8x P-lasers 4x sand Was this mostly copied and pasted from the Ares? Is it worth talking about guns and placement and such?

In my mind, the escape pods are there more for the passengers' peace of mind than anything else.  The weapons are basically copied from the Ares, with a few changes. If anybody has suggestions for different weapons, shoot. I do like the idea of the Pulse/Beam/Particle turrets, though, as that gives each of those turrets a good punch at each range category. The primary reason that I kept missiles is in case we run into a foe with a reflec-coated hull. Personally, I'm completely unconcerned with where they're placed, as it has no effect in play, but you guys should feel free to put them in whatever order/position you like. 

Alby said: For sure. I mean, if folks have the opportunity to make their way in an orderly fashion to the shuttle bay for evacuation then the shuttle is definitely our best option. It may be worth double checking to make sure the shuttle is capable of taking all hands on board at the same time.  But it may take a couple of minutes for pilots and passengers to scurry down ladders and across the ship into the shuttle. And then a while to fire up the cold power plant, and then, if the ship still has power to open the hanger bay doors, all will be well. But if the ship is in the process of exploding, or if it has been depressurized and you're stuck in your state room without a vacc suit ... I'm still thinking that each stateroom's pod should be adjacent to the stateroom. You could even make the pod the closet in which hangs the client's vacc suit. The pod is also a constant reminder to the client that we have arranged everything so that they are travelling with a maximum level of safety. All non-skeleton-Crew, those that aren’t on the bridge, keeping the engine running just a bit longer, or making sure the ship has been evacuated, leave in the shuttle; passenger safety is the first priority. Everyone else takes an Air Raft, G-Carrier, or Escape Pod, as necessary. The problem with putting all the Escape Pods in the rooms is that then there aren’t any near the Galley, or the Bar, or wherever the passengers or Crew go for entertainment, or other similar high-traffic areas. Plus, as outlined above, done right , it’s the Crew that takes the Escape Pods, not the passengers. Wolfen said: Unless we're going to allow the passengers to have ready access to the shuttle, which I would be against, passengers should have access to escape pods from their staterooms. If they're in a common area when disaster strikes, ship's personnel can escort them to the shuttle if that's a better option. Passengers should always be one locked door away from the Shuttle. By no means ready access, but certainly immediate access. Upon arrival, passengers shouldn’t have long to walk to get to their room. Escape by Shuttle should be the escape plan we default to; Escape Pods should be the backup plan. We don’t want the people we are supposed to be protecting scooped up by the guys who just blasted our ship apart . That means they need to escape by shuttle .

With regards to the Turrets, I see the best option being a turret above and below each corner and side of the ship, for maximum coverage. I’m not clear on the extent to which a barbette can be aimed... do they swivel, or are they fixed in place?

Barbettes are like big, chunky turrets.  There's no game mechanic reason for us to stress about turret arcs and such. Its really just for flavor. I think it's best to have "maximum" coverage for defensive and point defense weapons like sandcasters and beam lasers. It's not good for purely offensive, long range weapons though. For those you want to make sure that all turrets can bear into a single arc so that you can "broadside" a single target. You don't want to tumble the whole ship just so that you can attack a single target - although in a six minute game combat round you could. Tumbling just seems awkward to me.  Seeing that we have a roughly cone shaped ship, we automatically have a front arc that all of our turrets should be able to focus on, so that's not really a problem. What I was thinking of though was the possibility of having long range turrets, short ranged turrets, and regular universal turrets. So: two triple missile turrets ( long range ) two tripple P-laser-P-laser, Sand turrets ( short range ) and six B-laser, P-laser, P Accelerator  ( universal ) Here's the thinking - Missiles are only good at long range. So having them mixed with other weapons means that a lot of the time a gunner has really only got a double turret. IF they're all in turrets exclusively for missiles then that gunner can let rip when targets are in missile range. When targets get closer they can cross the hall into one of the short range turrets. Or we could simply have the gunner bots in those turrets.  We'd put the PCs in the "universal" turrets because they have the ability to engage at all ranges. There's never a moment in space combat when they don't have something to do with all three weapons.  The bonus with having the missiles in only two triple turrets is deck plan wise it's easier to have a "missile magazine" behind only two turrets. 

Agree with most of what you are saying but 2 lucky shoots and we have no missiles, and that could be bad if we need to use nukes again. A dispersed arrangement would solve that.

Here are the merits of mixed turrets... Suppose you have a ship encounter... it starts exclusively at Long Range. All the long range weapons work, but none of the Medium and Short range weapons do, so some of the gunners just sit there twiddling their thumbs. Now suppose you have a different ship encounter... it’s an ambush, so it starts at Short Range. All the Short Range weapons work, but none of the Medium and Long Range weapons do, so some of the gunners just sit there twiddling their thumbs. Mixed Turrets keep every gunner in the fight; it’s particularly good for players, so they always have something to do, and so they don’t have to spend a round running from one turret to the next or something (and, just to make a point, if turrets were remotely operated like they would be in real life, this wouldn’t matter). Now, when you have one or two extraordinary gunners, it makes sense to have them spend a round switching between stations to the turret with weapons that are exclusively the range of the target... unless the rest of the gunners are players too. So, besides the firing arc coverage, there’s also the matter of making sure players always having something to fire with, regardless of what range they’re firing at, and of making sure the best gunners are in a turret that matches the current combat range.

Personally if i was a Navel Architect, i would make the escape pods double as remote stations for almost any function of the ship, so when the waist products hit the rotating device you would be safe-ish.

Tenacious Techhunter said: .... Suppose you have a ship encounter... it starts exclusively at Long Range. All the long range weapons work, but none of the Medium and Short range weapons do, so some of the gunners just sit there twiddling their thumbs. .... I think you may have skipped over some of my post.  I actually agree with you. The "universal" turrets each have a Pulse, Beam and Particle Accelerator. So most of the turrets are "universal" and can fire at all ranges . Like I said, "We'd put the PCs in the "universal" turrets because they have the ability to engage at all ranges. There's never a moment in space combat when they don't have something to do with all three weapons. " It's the missiles that make things a drag. They can't be used at close range at all. At that range, if you have a missile launcher in your triple turret, you now only have two weapons. Even a long range weapon like a PA can still be fired at close range targets. So that's why I was suggesting that we put the missiles in their own turrets, and let the robots handle them. Mainly because missile launchers are occasionally useless. Same with sand casters. If you're not firing sand then that sandcaster is taking up a slot in your turret that could be used by a weapon that can be fired every round. Let the robots be the one's who have to "twiddle their fingers" every now and then. Give the Player Characters turrets they can use every round and every range with weapons that never run out of ammo.  Like I said, if a player is really keen to fire missiles they can go right ahead and launch a volley of three missiles every turn from a turret. When targets get too close he can swap over to a short range turret. But generally he'd be better off in one of the "universal" turrets. A single hit from a PA does more damage than three missiles with the addition of a radiation hit. PAs are better than nukes. They're the ship version of the PGMP as far as power goes. Missiles may still be handy for getting a target to use up it's "reactions" firing point defense. If it does that it won't be able to dodge our PA attacks. But really that's all missiles seem to be good for.  

Back on the pods, I was thinking that maybe the launchers for the pods could be on the border between the Galley/lounge area where guests hang out and their state rooms. A bit like this (pods are green) Have the passenger area close to where we park the shuttle and we've got it set up so that our VIPs are never more than a few seconds away from an emergency exit. 

Pakkrat said: Re: Sensor Hits  one could always purchase a secondary, redundant, backup system for same tonnage and price. That's actually not a bad idea either.  Redundant Systems The same component can be installed multiple times – a ship can carry a backup computer, a backup power plant and so forth. Only one such system can be used at any time, with the exception of armaments. Backup systems come online automatically when the primary system is disabled. Once all backup systems have been disabled, further hits start destroying systems, starting with the primary system. (p106 Main Rulebook) How about a Basic Civilian sensor package as a back up? Weighs 1 dton and costs 50000cr. 

Alby said: Pakkrat said: Re: Sensor Hits  one could always purchase a secondary, redundant, backup system for same tonnage and price. That's actually not a bad idea either.  Redundant Systems The same component can be installed multiple times – a ship can carry a backup computer, a backup power plant and so forth. Only one such system can be used at any time, with the exception of armaments. Backup systems come online automatically when the primary system is disabled. Once all backup systems have been disabled, further hits start destroying systems, starting with the primary system. (p106 Main Rulebook) How about a Basic Civilian sensor package as a back up? Weighs 1 dton and costs 50000cr.  Sure. I don't think anybody would balk at that small of an addition. Adding it in now.

Alby said: Back on the pods, I was thinking that maybe the launchers for the pods could be on the border between the Galley/lounge area where guests hang out and their state rooms. A bit like this (pods are green) Have the passenger area close to where we park the shuttle and we've got it set up so that our VIPs are never more than a few seconds away from an emergency exit.  I like it. I'm assuming/hoping that you guys are going to deal with the map?

So, what, the pods are firing out vertically? I think it’s better to distribute the pods evenly around the ship. It’s more likely that the Crew are going to be stranded on board than the passengers, and the distribution of the escape pods should reflect that. Also, the Escape Pods are going to need enough Life Support for the Shuttle to land somewhere safe on the surface of a nearby planet with the passengers, hide out for a bit if necessary, and then return to space for the Escape Pods. That may require a bit of a Life Support upgrade. Also, if you’re going to cluster that many staterooms together, you may as well go for one or two bigger escape pods, rather than many “Individual + 1” escape pods; redundancy is important, but so is being able to collect them all before the air runs out.

For the Deck Plans, I have a lousy suggestion; use these: <a href="http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/181541/TAS-2D-" rel="nofollow">http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/181541/TAS-2D-</a>... The suggestion is lousy because these images really look terrible (in my opinion), and the licensing terms suck . Pretty far from what I originally asked for; SVG images under an attribution only license. But they do get the job done...

Tenacious Techhunter said: So, what, the pods are firing out vertically Yeah that's the idea. Up through the roof or down through the floor. So you step into the closet, push the button and fashoom ! I think it’s better to distribute the pods evenly around the ship. It’s more likely that the Crew are going to be stranded on board than the passengers, and the distribution of the escape pods should reflect that. Also, the Escape Pods are going to need enough Life Support for the Shuttle to land somewhere safe on the surface of a nearby planet with the passengers, hide out for a bit if necessary, and then return to space for the Escape Pods. That may require a bit of a Life Support upgrade. Well ... I guess we need to figure out where most people spend most of their time. Scatter the pods close to that area. That was the thinking behind the illustration. All of a passenger's time is spent either in their state room or in the galley/lounge area. They don't go anywhere else. And I don't think that pods have been purchased for the crew. There are 25 state rooms but only 10 pods (at the moment). Escape Pods: This covers the installation of rescue bubbles (see ds: page 97) and other escape pods for the entire crew. ( p110 Main Rulebook ) Rescue Bubble (TL 9): A large (2m diameter) pressurised plastic bubble. Piezoelectric layers in the bubble wall translate the user’s movements into electricity to recharge the bubble’s batteries and power its distress beacon, and a small oxygen tank both inflates the bubble and provides two person/hours of life support. A selfrepairing plastic seal serves as an emergency airlock. Rescue bubbles are found on both space and sea vessels as emergency lifeboats. Cr. 600 ( p97 Main Rulebook ) 2 hours - so fair point about upgrading the life support! I suggested earlier that the pod could double as a closet for the Vacc suits. Extended life support for those vacc suits costs 10,000cr each ( p89 ). &nbsp;So folks eject, pop a fast pill ( p94 ) and then put their Vacc suit on. That would give them a total of 50 days of survival (20 hours x60).&nbsp; Each Vacc suit could also be equipped with one of these: Vacc Suit Emergency Kit (TL 8) : A belt-carried pack, the emergency kit is designed to allow a vacc suit user to save himself or someone else in the event of an accident and to increase the chances of a search finding him. Yanking a lanyard will release a tethered balloon reflector. This is somewhat similar to a rescue ball but filled at very low pressure. It inflates into a 3m-diameter radar reflector which is tethered to the user’s belt. It vastly increases the user’s radar cross-section and makes a search more likely to find him. The kit itself contains a radio beacon/repeater, a handheld strobe beacon, tethering cord, suit patches, spray sealant for multiple small holes, a 30-minute replacement air bottle and two hand-held gas thruster units. The latter are designed to allow the stranded spacefarer a last-ditch attempt to reach safety. The kit also contains a metallic reflectorised blanket increasing radar detectability and reduces absorbed radiation in the event the spacefarer is caught outside in a solar fl are, decreasing exposure by 100 rads. Cr. 500. Tenacious Techhunter said: Also, if you’re going to cluster that many staterooms together, you may as well go for one or two bigger escape pods, rather than many “Individual + 1” escape pods; redundancy is important, but so is being able to collect them all before the air runs out Well ... now we're just making stuff up. Are you talking about a 20 dton launch? If they've taken fast pills then there's no hurry to pick them up.&nbsp; If we're going to start making stuff up our highschool pnp game had the emergency low berths set up so that they had their own power and low powered propulsion. They could be jettisoned like life boats once they were loaded up. Each could hold 4 passengers and weighed 1dton.&nbsp;

No, I just figured that it would make sense for there to be more than one size of Escape Pod; if there isn’t, well, that’s Traveller for you. But yeah; at 2 hours, existing Escape Pod designs are completely unrealistic; they have to last long enough for someone to find you. In an obvious emergency situation, we wake everyone up and move them into the shuttle. In a surprise emergency situation, the Shuttle should be as accessible as possible; more accessible than even the Escape Pods. The Crew risks their survival being stuck in Escape Pods... not the comparative safety of the Shuttle. Only when the Shuttle has already been damaged should the Passengers be expected to take the Escape Pods, and the Crew can be left behind to try and get the Shuttle working again, or to risk using a G-Carrier, or some other vehicle, as a Life Boat. So yeah, I see the Escape Pods as predominantly more of a Crew thing than a Passenger thing, as things have to have gotten pretty damn dodgy for an Escape Pod to be the better choice than the Shuttle; and the layout of the ship’s Deck Plan should reflect that.

Yeah I Think we've established that the shuttle would be plan A.&nbsp; EDIT: Just double checked - the shuttle has 4 state rooms, cabin space for 4, and crew couches for 4. So that's a total of 16 folks on board.&nbsp;We may be able to cram a few more into the vehicles, but I'm just wondering if that's enough.&nbsp;

Guys, let's not go too crazy with the escape stuff. In all likelihood, we'll never need to use them. That said, the fact that the assualt shuttle can't take too many passengers is a good point. Of course, I don't think we're planning on having lots and lots of passengers, anyway. Remember that we're probably going to be have 16-24 crew if we want to man the ship anywhere near properly. As is, we're probably going to have to convert around half of the single staterooms to doubles in order to keep any single staterooms for VIPs and primary officers. I'll play with the numbers and firm those numbers up later. Suggestions would be welcome.

That’s the way they were thinking about the Titanic...

I guess we need a solid figure when it comes to "required crew" so we can figure it out.&nbsp; According to p 113 a full crew for a ship this size: Pilots - 3 plus backups. (3+) Navigator - 1 plus backups (1+) Engineers -&nbsp;One engineer per 50 tons of jump drive, power plant, or manoeuvre drive. (3) Medic -&nbsp;One per 120 passengers (1) Gunners -&nbsp;Two per turret or bay (24) Steward -&nbsp;One steward skill per two high or five middle passengers (see page 142). (1) Officers -&nbsp;One per 10 crew (3) We could probably get away with fewer gunners seeing that we have gunner bots. But strictly sticking to the above figures from page 113 we're looking at a crew of 36.&nbsp; Lets just say we trimmed that down to 24 thanks to 12 gunner bots ( we'd need to buy a few more? Pretty sure we're down to seven ). So 8 single staterooms for important crew like officers, medic, pilots and navigators, double for everyone else. That makes 16 state rooms for crew. 9 left for VIPs.&nbsp; Does that sound right to everyone?&nbsp; EDIT : Reduced number of stewards to 1 assuming we have the skilz either from actual skill ranks or from luxuries. Number of rooms adjusted.&nbsp;

We can trim the number down a bit more with a very well trained Steward. It's 2high or 5med per steward skill so if we get someone with a 3+ we should be good on most occasions. And if worse comes to worse, we always have Izek(Izak?).

I believe that the luxuries that we're installing redue the number of stewards required.

Wolfen said: I believe that the luxuries that we're installing redue the number of stewards required. Here's the thing ... I know the rules talk about having a minimum level of steward skill for set numbers of passengers. But this seems to be a different thing all together. We're not talking about the minimum requirements. We're talking about having a "full crew".&nbsp; The reason I think this is a big deal is because there is a difference between having your meal brought to you by a human waiter and having to get it yourself at a "luxury" buffet. Even being served by a robot is a bit substandard. The standard for a "Full" level of service seems to be 1 steward per two passengers. Anything less is okay - you can still charge High Passage prices for it. But if we're going to be charging premium rates we need to be offering premium service.&nbsp; If high security luxury transport is going to be our "main thing" then the role of steward basically becomes one of the most important roles on the ship.&nbsp; EDIT: Oh wait - it does say "skill" there. My bad. Yeah looks like we can trim that down a fair bit.&nbsp;

Also we can have people with dual jobs, such as Jacob or Kayleb, they're gunnery and engineer meaning we would have to hire even less crew.

True, but I'm not sure if splitting jobs can get us across the "full crew" line. That kind of thing is okay if you're running on a skeleton crew like we have been so far, but if we're trying to show clients that we have the ship fully staffed and under control it's probably not a good look.&nbsp; Take the current situation as an example. We have one pilot. There may be a couple of others who can act as back ups, but Gev is pretty much the guy. On a commercial ship you'd split the role into 8 hour shifts. Making someone work more than 8 hours straight at a single task is a sure fire way of maximizing the "human error" factor. You could get away with it on a tramp freighter, or maybe a military ship. But on a commercial ship where passenger safety could depend on your pilot actually being awake while behind the wheel ...&nbsp; Some jobs may be able to overlap. But some really don't overlap very well. Crow's and Kayleb's current roles are a good example. In combat there are actually engineering tasks that could be done. We can't do them because the engineers are all in the turrets shooting stuff up. If something needed to be done like damage control or jump power diversion we'd currently have to take someone out of a turret to do it. I guess that's what the gunner bots are for... but still ... it's a bad look.&nbsp;