The K-1 conundrum - Delving into Kearny-Fuchida theory

[Cryhavok101]

There is one difference between a small craft version and a dropship version: The dropship version will have 1 more crew and need to have 1 more quarters for it. Small craft crew are 3+gunners, dropship crew are 3+1 per 5000 tons (round up)+gunners (pg 189 tech manual). That 'round up' means the K-1 dropship would have 4+gunners crew instead of 3. Presumably that would be as simple as designating only 5 passenger quarters, but they could keep the passenger count and drop the cargo I suppose. Either way, it isn't 100% the same as the small craft version.

But then with the ship's name being K-1 DropShuttle, I think it should be able to go in a DropShuttle Bay, and the ruling is what should change.

[Daryk]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ruling.  Now if we could get the
"no bay quality crew quarters for Small Craft" rescinded and something done about VTOL gear for aerodyne Small Craft, we'd really be making progress...

[ColBosch]

It has no value in either ground-scale nor aerospace games as anything but a special objective. It is a piece of background filler, and yet it is causing problems for the major playable units. Its "special snowflake" nature calls into question some of the basic assumptions that the setting relies on.

A retcon, of some form, is in order. It's been done innumerable times before.

[Cryhavok101]

calls into question some of the basic assumptions that the setting relies on.

The only problem involved involves a ruling that isn't in any errata document or book. I don't think I would describe it this way. In fact, it is the ruling that is doing this very thing. In more ways than one.

[Daryk]

And to reinforce that point, with a 5,000 ton limit for drop shuttle bays, there's nothing particularly game breaking about letting drop ships under that tonnage be carried that way.

[Fireangel]

It has no value in either ground-scale nor aerospace games as anything but a special objective.

For decades now, it has been an essential part of more than one force in our local games. Just because it is not widely used by some players does not mean that they are not used by others.

A retcon, of some form, is in order. It's been done innumerable times before.

Not trying to sound bitter, but the ratio of aero to ground retcons is heavily skewed.   :-X

[ColBosch]

Not trying to sound bitter, but the ratio of aero to ground retcons is heavily skewed.   :-X

 ;D

[glitterboy2098]

Perhaps small craft (and the earlier dropshuttles) have a kind of 'lesser' boom system, a predecessor tech to the full blown boom system used in dropships. Call it a KF anchor, say. Which is designed to connect through a small craft bay (or dropshuttlebay).
The K1 then could just be fluffed as having a full dropship collar compatible docking clamp and airlock, and adaptors to make the small craft system work with the collar, which only works because it is so small and falls within the KF field fully already, just needing that 'anchor' to ensure it meshes properly.

[glitterboy2098]

Sorry, accidental double post network issues

[Giovanni Blasini]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ruling.  Now if we could get the

Believe me, you're not.

"no bay quality crew quarters for Small Craft" rescinded and something done about VTOL gear for aerodyne Small Craft, we'd really be making progress...

I'm OK with at least steerage quarters being required.  Makes life support and a transit drive the difference between small craft and an aerospace fighter that carries cargo.

[Cryhavok101]

Perhaps small craft (and the earlier dropshuttles) have a kind of 'lesser' boom system, a predecessor tech to the full blown boom system used in dropships. Call it a KF anchor, say. Which is designed to connect through a small craft bay (or dropshuttlebay).
The K1 then could just be fluffed as having a full dropship collar compatible docking clamp and airlock, and adaptors to make the small craft system work with the collar, which only works because it is so small and falls within the KF field fully already, just needing that 'anchor' to ensure it meshes properly.

This is an explanation that causes as many problems as the ruling itself does. It's discussed previously in the thread as well.

[Fireangel]

Believe me, you're not.

I'm OK with at least steerage quarters being required.  Makes life support and a transit drive the difference between small craft and an aerospace fighter that carries cargo.

I would require steerage for actual crew, and accept bay for gunners.

Which reminds me... we need to bring back canon ASF lighters. 8)

[Daryk]

If Small Craft had an upper limit higher than 200 tons, I could see Steerage quarters as a requirement.  With only 200 tons to work with and a minimum crew size, I think they're excessive.  Small Craft are more than sufficiently limited by their fuel tanks and don't need the mass penalty of full quarters of any kind.  Even with bay quarters, you'd be hard pressed to build a "heavy fighter" that's worth the trouble compared to their weight or cost in ASFs.

[Fireangel]

If Small Craft had an upper limit higher than 200 tons, I could see Steerage quarters as a requirement.  With only 200 tons to work with and a minimum crew size, I think they're excessive.  Small Craft are more than sufficiently limited by their fuel tanks and don't need the mass penalty of full quarters of any kind.  Even with bay quarters, you'd be hard pressed to build a "heavy fighter" that's worth the trouble compared to their weight or cost in ASFs.

Or, since all small craft regardless of weight have a minimum crew of 3 (not counting gunners), we could have something like a small craft cockpit that incorporates control functions* and quarters-equivalent life support for the three crew into one construction unit weighing, for example, 7 tons, and each gunner adding an extra ton.


* 100-165 tons = 1 ton control equipment; 170-200 tons = 1.5 tons control equipment

[Cryhavok101]

The main problem I see is in the consumable requirements. Those are decided by the type of quarters, since the quarters include life support systems to cover the crew. With steerage you have the not quite as good consumable needs as with 1st & 2nd class quarters. If you go even smaller, would the consumable requirements go up? Not that that is a huge problem, just something that would need to be decided.

Personally, I am all for being able to design small craft for short range operations or long range operations. One has quarters and life support it needs, and the other gets minimalistic because it doesn't need to go all out on that stuff. The more options the better.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

The main problem I see is in the consumable requirements. Those are decided by the type of quarters, since the quarters include life support systems to cover the crew. With steerage you have the not quite as good consumable needs as with 1st & 2nd class quarters. If you go even smaller, would the consumable requirements go up? Not that that is a huge problem, just something that would need to be decided.

Personally, I am all for being able to design small craft for short range operations or long range operations. One has quarters and life support it needs, and the other gets minimalistic because it doesn't need to go all out on that stuff. The more options the better.

IMHO the minimum crew of 3 is excessive. I get that it's to give you 24 hour coverage at the helm and engines, but what if you don't need 24 hours?

Same with life support requirements. I can understand long duration missions where you'll need full crews and at least steerage quarters, but what about purpose-built short duration craft that won't need even steerage quarters(only acceleration couches @ 3T each) and can be flown by only one pilot for a few hours?

[Fireangel]

The main problem I see is in the consumable requirements. Those are decided by the type of quarters, since the quarters include life support systems to cover the crew. With steerage you have the not quite as good consumable needs as with 1st & 2nd class quarters. If you go even smaller, would the consumable requirements go up? Not that that is a huge problem, just something that would need to be decided.

Personally, I am all for being able to design small craft for short range operations or long range operations. One has quarters and life support it needs, and the other gets minimalistic because it doesn't need to go all out on that stuff. The more options the better.

A single ton of consumables should be more than enough; 200 man-days in quarters supply equals 20 man-days in bay supply, which should be more than enough for a short mission lasting at most a couple days.

[Daryk]

Even the long range shuttles weren't designed for a mission profile of more than about one week.  Both Cryhavok and Fireangel have it right: we should have the flexibility to go either way, and a ton of consumables should be enough for the crew regardless.  Passengers are another kettle of fish.

[Cryhavok101]

...and a ton of consumables should be enough for the crew regardless.

Not necessarily. At the 20 man-days per ton rate a crew of 3 with 2 gunners would be through 1 ton in 4 days. All that takes is a small craft with 7 weapons (or other gear that takes crew). Add a 28-man infantry platoon to that and you would need 1.65 tons per day. System transit can be a problem without enough consumables (which is not just food, but water and air as well), but a battletaxi delivering boarding marines would probably only need 68.75 kg of consumables per hour of operation.

And if we went with a minimalistic cockpit style thing, it might have worse life support, reducing it from they Bay quality 20 man-days per ton, all the way to passengers-in-cargo quality of 5 man-days per ton, making the space needed for consumables even worse. However, that problem is not really a problem for a short range shuttle, which would still be needing a miniscule amount to operate at it's intended range.

What is funny though, is that you can put that same 28 man infantry bay aboard an aerospace fighter, and it gets 96 hours free.

[Daryk]

It's almost like the whole design system for Small Craft needs to be revisited...  ::)

And sorry, I should have been more clear: I was using Fireangel's distinction between "crew" and "gunners" there.

[Cryhavok101]

And sorry, I should have been more clear: I was using Fireangel's distinction between "crew" and "gunners" there.

I don't understand why there is a distinction. The only one I can find in the rules is that base crew is a set number and gunners are variable depending on number of weapons. I can't find any other distinction between the two in the rules. Care to elaborate?

[Vition2]

It's almost like the whole design system for Small Craft needs to be revisited...  ::)

The aerospace aspect of the entire battletech rules set could probably be revisited, just about all the types of design could use some changes.

[Daryk]

I meant that a ton will be sufficient for the three crewmen required by every craft.  Gunners would need extra, just like passengers.  Saying it that way kind of drives home the point: people are people.  Why should "crew" need anything more than any other person aboard for the same amount of time?  The underlying lack of consistency there is what is driving me to look at the rules from the bottom up (starting with power packs down in the fan rules section).

And Vition2: agreed!

[Cryhavok101]

I've always wondered why we can put a 3 ton bay on to cover 28 people but need a 5 ton item for a single person. In that one, I think the problem lies in the infantry bay rules, counting as having quarters and life support for the whole platoon. Personally, I think all bays should have quarters separate from the bay. Several of the bays make no sense when they are suppose to have quarters in them. For example the 200 ton vehicle bay has space for not only a 200 ton vehicle, but also 15 bay personnel.

The 3 ton infantry bay is why I think we should be able to design short range small craft and long range ones: ones with quarters, and ones as cramped as any APC.

But yeah, the aerospace rules could definitely use a revisiting.

I'd like to see quarters separated from bays, life support separated from quarters, complete reworking of fire control (200 gunners, but gets a penalty to shoot more than one target?), actual space devoted to drop cocoons (reflected in a difference in transport bays aboard things that can orbitally drop stuff possibly, and an 'ammo' of how many drop cocoons a bay has before it needs a new supply), and a bunch of other things.

[Fireangel]

I don't understand why there is a distinction. The only one I can find in the rules is that base crew is a set number and gunners are variable depending on number of weapons. I can't find any other distinction between the two in the rules. Care to elaborate?

You can fly the small craft without gunners manning the guns, just like you can fly a B-17 without the gunners or bombardier, but you need to have the crew present.

The quarters for the crew represent full-on facilities so the crew can transport the ship vast distances without expecting combat. Minimal (bay) quarters for the gunners indicate minor mods so that the gunners can be present for missions lasting less than a few days.

Doing this, a hypothetical small craft with three crew (with steerage-grade quarters) and three gunners (with bay grade quarters) will consume 33 man-days of supplies every day (3 man-days for the crew and 30 man-days for the gunners), giving the craft an endurance of six days, which should be more than enough for an escort gunship, or a short-range unit.

For orbit-to-surface landing craft, you do not need consumables for infantry or bay personnel, because they are not going to be in the shuttle for more than a few hours.

[Amaris Fan Club]

Well, a lot of stuff about bays doesn't seem to make much sense, but it let's the rules be fairly simple.

If you want true detail then you have to start doing things like calculating the difference between empty bays and full ones, or (gasp) recalculating the delta-v of the ship based on how much fuel it has used ... look up the equations and prepare to be confused unless you have an engineering degree (i don't, so Duuhhh....)

All that having been said if we have a distinction between bays and compartments we should have a distinction between long-haul small craft quarters and short-haul quarters - maybe a 1 ton "stateroom" that covers a small bunk and 96 hours of food and water?

[Cryhavok101]

Ah, I get what you are saying. Personally, I'd never deploy a ship without it's gunners. When I am designing one, I roll the gunners into the rest of the crew and just use one big number. RP-wise rather than tabletop you could probably fly the ship with less crew, with reduced effectiveness. I know I generally have One pilot, one navigator, and one engineer as that 3 man crew, and for a skeleton crew, it could probably be flown with just one guy... just poorly lol.

Despite that, I support anything that gives you more options to build stuff with, and if someone wants to build a ship that way it should be allowed. More options is almost always better.

[Nebfer]

IMHO the minimum crew of 3 is excessive. I get that it's to give you 24 hour coverage at the helm and engines, but what if you don't need 24 hours?

Same with life support requirements. I can understand long duration missions where you'll need full crews and at least steerage quarters, but what about purpose-built short duration craft that won't need even steerage quarters(only acceleration couches @ 3T each) and can be flown by only one pilot for a few hours?

Most large craft have used more dedicated Navigators, even on flights lasting a few hours, Now days we do not need them as much due to GPS and robust navigation systems emplaced, but even then most aircraft are built with multiple crew in mind, even if that crewman is not used most of the time. In B-tech it can be assumed that a GPS network is at best spotty, and other systems are also likely to be a bit spotty.

So having a dedicated Navigator might be a good idea, this is considering that all small craft have endurance's in the 30+ hours. As such having multiple shifts will be required and as such it will be made to factor that, even if that option is not used at a given time.

In WW2 it was not unknown for single seat fighters undergoing long range patrols in areas with limited navigation aids to bring along a multi crew aircraft who did have a dedicated navigator (or some one who was more free to do that function than the pilot).

Crew roles I can see in most small craft, though a number of can be combined or omitted depending on the role.
Pilot
Engineer
Navigator
Load Master
Communications
Gunners
Commander
Sensor operator

For example
Pilot/Commander (and likely the "officer", though other crew many also have piloting functions), Engineer/Load master (monitors the engines and maintains them in flight as well as other maintenance functions, also looks after the ships cargo, as most small craft have notable cargo transport dutys) & Navigator/Communications (fairly self explanatory) as a basic crew, with Gunner(s)/Sensor operator(s) if the craft is armed.

[glitterboy2098]

So what does all this have to do with the issue of the K1's dual docking methods, and proposed retcons thereof?

[Cryhavok101]

So what does all this have to do with the issue of the K1's dual docking methods, and proposed retcons thereof?

My assumption was that we said pretty much everything there was to say on the matter, and afterwards the conversation evolved. Did you have more to add to it?