Should Fighters Need Commanders?

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Do you think it is necessary for fighter craft to have commanders?

Don't get me wrong, I love know there's a named dude in each of my fighter-craft, but I worry that also makes the cost of losing them too steep. And realistically most of those ships would be piloted by a more junior officer than is meant to be modeled in Aurora.

What I hope for is that Aurora gets updated to model ALL officers, including the most junior grades. Ship components like sensors, fire controls, and cargo shuttle bays should all need a certain number of junior officers assigned to it depending on the size. If the officer has stats relevant to their station, they improve the function of that part somewhat. Academy spawn rates would be adjusted to account for the dramatic increase use of officers, of course.

Either way, right now it feels weird having mid-level officers all fly fighters and I hope something changes there.

[Cosinus]

Fighters in Aurora are not comparable to the fighters of the present which usually only have 1 or 2 crew members. Fighters in Aurora have 10-20 crew, sometimes even more. So I agree with them needing a commander. This officer cost is one of the trade offs of using fighters, but fighters give you some other advantages (like high range) to make up for it.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Fighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.

A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.

[Shadow]

Command-wise, 15-30 men is the realm of naval lieutenants still. They're different yet in that regard similar to one-man fighters.

As far as implementing junior officers goes, I'm all for it but the game would need to be able to more intelligently assign them in order not to create a micromanagement hell. Volume of officers aside, the lower ranks would have the most turnout, so that heightens the need for solid automation.

[DFNewb]

My craft only have two people, you guys are just making your fighters too large clearly

Bomber - class Bomber      125 tons       2 Crew       30.2 BP       TCS 2    TH 13    EM 0
10031 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.9
Maint Life 5.92 Years     MSP 20    AFR 25%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 1    5YR 15    Max Repair 18.75 MSP
Magazine 6   
StormBoy    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP25.00 (1)    Power 25    Fuel Use 1073.31%    Signature 12.5    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 4 000 Litres    Range 0.5 billion km (14 hours at full power)

Size 6.00 Box Launcher (1)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC5-R1 (1)     Range 5.4m km    Resolution 1
ThornMKII Size 6 (1)    Speed: 29 167 km/s    End: 1.9m     Range: 3.3m km    WH: 10    Size: 6    TH: 136/81/40

Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

[Jorgen_CAB]

Missile fighters require allot less crew than any other type of fighter because box launchers don't require any crew and the missile fire control is often very small and the engine only require one or a few crew members. So you can get away with 2-4 crew on most box launching fighter platforms.

If you build any other type of fighter you will need allot more crew, such as a sensor scout, rail-gun fighter etc...

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Fighters in Aurora are not comparable to the fighters of the present which usually only have 1 or 2 crew members. Fighters in Aurora have 10-20 crew, sometimes even more. So I agree with them needing a commander. This officer cost is one of the trade offs of using fighters, but fighters give you some other advantages (like high range) to make up for it.

I don't see where you're getting these numbers from. The vast majority of my fighters, even the 500 ton ones, have crew below 10. Even if 10-20 was the norm, a LT.Commander would be too high a rank to command such a small ship.

Fighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.

A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.

I don't see this. Fighters are bigger than what we would traditionally call a fighter, but they aren't the size of corvettes and certainly not frigates. More the size of 747s or other large commercial planes. I don't see how you could convert 300 tons to 4000 tons.

[Ulzgoroth]

Fighters in Aurora are not comparable to the fighters of the present which usually only have 1 or 2 crew members. Fighters in Aurora have 10-20 crew, sometimes even more. So I agree with them needing a commander. This officer cost is one of the trade offs of using fighters, but fighters give you some other advantages (like high range) to make up for it.

I don't see where you're getting these numbers from. The vast majority of my fighters, even the 500 ton ones, have crew below 10. Even if 10-20 was the norm, a LT.Commander would be too high a rank to command such a small ship.

Are they all missile fighters or micro-Gauss interceptors rather than rail or energy weapon types?

Aside from small Gauss guns, any beam weapon will take at least 8-9 crew, and then engine crew will put you over 10.

[davidb86]

Below are fighter designs posted in the last week with +/- 20 crew, it is not unusual.

Code: [Select]

Barracuda-G class Fighter      500 tons       21 Crew       167.2 BP       TCS 10    TH 175    EM 0
17533 km/s      Armour 3-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 12.82 Years     MSP 232    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 39    Max Repair 87.5 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive  EP175.00 (1)    Power 175    Fuel Use 1002.23%    Signature 175    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 15,000 Litres    Range 0.5 billion km (8 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-50.0 (1x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 17,533 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 50.0%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 32,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Barracuda-G3 class Fighter      500 tons       23 Crew       156.2 BP       TCS 10    TH 150    EM 0
15003 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5
Maint Life 4.41 Years     MSP 79    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 7    5YR 98    Max Repair 75 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive  EP150.00 (1)    Power 150    Fuel Use 1082.53%    Signature 150    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (6 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 (1x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 15,003 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 85.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 32,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Claymore Class Assault Fighter (P)      500 tons       18 Crew       106.8 BP       TCS 10    TH 80    EM 0
8015 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 2/2/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3.79
Maint Life 2.91 Years     MSP 60    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 10    5YR 157    Max Repair 40.00 MSP
Magazine 5.25   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.5 days    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP80.00 (1)    Power 80.0    Fuel Use 791.96%    Signature 80.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 38,000 Litres    Range 1.7 billion km (59 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V30/C3 (1x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 8,015 km/s     Power 3-3     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R32-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 32,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 10%

Size 5.25 Box Launcher (1)     Missile Size: 5.25    Hangar Reload 114 minutes    MF Reload 19 hours
Missile Fire Control FC27-R125 (1)     Range 27.1m km    Resolution 125
Claymore ASM (1)    Speed: 18,286 km/s    End: 24.2m     Range: 26.5m km    WH: 9    Size: 5.25    TH: 79/47/23

Active Search Sensor AS27-R125 (1)     GPS 1050     Range 27.1m km    Resolution 125
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 1     Range 1.9m km    MCR 168.4k km    Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM0.2-2.2 (1)     Sensitivity 2.2     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11.7m km
Thermal Sensor TH0.2-2.2 (1)     Sensitivity 2.2     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11.7m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Longspear Class Fighter (P)      500 tons       21 Crew       85.4 BP       TCS 10    TH 40    EM 0
4003 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5
Maint Life 1.90 Years     MSP 40    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 14    5YR 215    Max Repair 27.4 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP40.00 (1)    Power 40.0    Fuel Use 140.0%    Signature 40.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km (3 days at full power)

Particle Beam-2 (1)    Range 60,000km     TS: 4,003 km/s     Power 5-5    ROF 5        2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R64-TS4000 (1)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R5-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 5    Exp 10%

Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 1     Range 1.3m km    MCR 113.5k km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH0.1-1.1 (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km
EM Sensor EM0.1-1.1 (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Arrow - class Fighter      500 tons       24 Crew       197 BP       TCS 10    TH 80    EM 0
16020 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 3.09 Years     MSP 44    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 7    5YR 104    Max Repair 120 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP160.00 (1)    Power 160    Fuel Use 781.25%    Signature 80.0    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 27 000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km (21 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V40/C3 (1x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 16 020 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R40-TS15000 (1)     Max Range: 40 000 km   TS: 15 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3-PB40 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 20%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (1)     GPS 3     Range 3.1m km    MCR 281.8k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Scoutcraft - - class Scout      500 tons       19 Crew       213.4 BP       TCS 10    TH 80    EM 0
16003 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 3.03 Years     MSP 46    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 8    5YR 113    Max Repair 120 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP160.00 (1)    Power 160    Fuel Use 781.25%    Signature 80.0    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 49 000 Litres    Range 2.3 billion km (39 hours at full power)

Active Search Sensor AS57-R200 (1)     GPS 5600     Range 57.9m km    Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor AS9-R1 (1)     GPS 28     Range 9.9m km    MCR 891.1k km    Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Apollo class Fighter (P)      500 tons       23 Crew       85.1 BP       TCS 10    TH 87    EM 0
8707 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 5.16 Years     MSP 26    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 24    Max Repair 43.75 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

FAC Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine  EP87.50 (1)    Power 87.5    Fuel Use 401.06%    Signature 87.50    Explosion 17%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 Litres    Range 0.1 billion km (2 hours at full power)

10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 16 000km     TS: 8 707 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R16-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 16 000 km   TS: 8 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Improved Pebble Bed Reactor R3-PB10 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 7%

Active Micro-Sensor AS10-R100 (1)     GPS 160     Range 11m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor      473 tons       22 Crew       195.4 BP       TCS 9    TH 225    EM 0
23808 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5
Maint Life 6.37 Years     MSP 125    AFR 18%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 5    5YR 79    Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP225.00 (1)    Power 225    Fuel Use 1423.02%    Signature 225    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5)    Range 24 000km     TS: 23 808 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17.00%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R24-TS20000 (1)     Max Range: 24 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction


Code: [Select]

Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor      499 tons       24 Crew       219.5 BP       TCS 10    TH 225    EM 0
22583 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5
Maint Life 5.90 Years     MSP 127    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP225.00 (1)    Power 225    Fuel Use 1423.02%    Signature 225    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5)    Range 40 000km     TS: 22 583 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17.00%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R48-TS20000 (1)     Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

[serger]

In VB Aurora Missile Fire Control efficiency was not affected by Fighter Combat skill, so there was less reason to assign officers to missile fighters at all, and negative reason to assing them before sending missile fighters to the fire (during training there was some reason - to train crew, because both Missile Fire Controls and Maint Life was affected by crew quality).
In C# Aurora I haven't yet tested if those things are affected by small craft's commander's Fighter Combat and Engineering skills. It can be different from big ships; bridges are affecting combat command efficiency.

In my campaigns, from VB to C#1.10, I always used added lower ranks (Lieutenants) to fill positions on small crafts (direct weapon fighters in the first place), using now "senior commander" design option of light vessels (i.e. ships without bridge) to preserve those positions for Lieutenant-Commanders; those middle-rank officers who have high Fighter Combat skill I'm trying to assign manually as fighter formations commanders. That's quite difficult, when auto-promotion and auto-assignments are so... rectilinear and obtrusive, but I cannot swith auto-assignments off because I have to raise my officers from 20-year youth, when there is no other believable commander assignment exept of small craft, and there will be much more micromanagement if I have to assing all those newly-commisioned youths manually, so auto-assignment is lesser evil. And there is no option in current (1.11.0) version to swith off auto-promotion or even slow it down to smth like 3- or 4-year minimal tour (I have suggested it, but haven't any support). That's lamentable, but Steve have little interest in those matters.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Fighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.

A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.

I don't see this. Fighters are bigger than what we would traditionally call a fighter, but they aren't the size of corvettes and certainly not frigates. More the size of 747s or other large commercial planes. I don't see how you could convert 300 tons to 4000 tons.

From Steve himself...

In Aurora the tonnage is not in metric tons it is the Volume of Hydrogen to some mass or some such, don't remeber the details... but I'm pretty sure it is suppose to be *14 in cubic meters for each ton of Aurora.

So anything you see in Aurora is measured in "volume" not in actual mass as the mass of the ship is of no consequence to propelling it forward only the ships volume is.

So a 300t fighter actually have the volume of 4200 cubic meters. That could be something like 75*7*8 meters in dimension, so pretty big. An 8000t destroyer actually displace about 112000 kubic meters or could be like 350*20*16 meters (roughly the size of a large aircraft carrier). Even a tiny thing like a size 1 AMM is about 35 cubic meters in size, so not very small.

This is why a cargo ship burn as much fuel whether it is transporting any cargo or not for example or why a ship will not travel faster if they expend their fuel or ordnance as it otherwise should.

[Froggiest1982]

Do you think it is necessary for fighter craft to have commanders?

I don't remember exactly so I may have to fire up the VB6 quickly but I think they used to have commander on that release 7.1. Again I should start it again to confirm, so maybe somebody else could. I think it was tied to the Squadrons. So the fighter per se didn't have a commander but the squadron did. It was actually nice to have squadrons and it could be interesting to have them back.

SPECULATION: It may be possible it was somewhat removed to avoid it clashing with Fighter Pods?

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Fighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.

A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.

I don't see this. Fighters are bigger than what we would traditionally call a fighter, but they aren't the size of corvettes and certainly not frigates. More the size of 747s or other large commercial planes. I don't see how you could convert 300 tons to 4000 tons.

From Steve himself...

In Aurora the tonnage is not in metric tons it is the Volume of Hydrogen to some mass or some such, don't remeber the details... but I'm pretty sure it is suppose to be *14 in cubic meters for each ton of Aurora.

So anything you see in Aurora is measured in "volume" not in actual mass as the mass of the ship is of no consequence to propelling it forward only the ships volume is.

So a 300t fighter actually have the volume of 4200 cubic meters. That could be something like 75*7*8 meters in dimension, so pretty big. An 8000t destroyer actually displace about 112000 kubic meters or could be like 350*20*16 meters (roughly the size of a large aircraft carrier). Even a tiny thing like a size 1 AMM is about 35 cubic meters in size, so not very small.

This is why a cargo ship burn as much fuel whether it is transporting any cargo or not for example or why a ship will not travel faster if they expend their fuel or ordnance as it otherwise should.

Gotta say, I dont like that bit of lore. Ships that size are too big for my tastes.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I'm not certain where Jorgen is getting 14m^3 from.  The armour calculations in VB assumed 1t=1m^3, which is a perfectly valid way to measure ship size.

[xenoscepter]

Minor Lore Rant:

Off-Topic: show

I don't like that bit of lore either, and I do get tired of hearing it. It's completely true mind you, but it's tiring. I measure in weight and scale to weight in my games and I don't care to be right, so I end up finding it petulant. for new players though, this can be very informative and I'll readily admit it helps me come to terms with sizes myself. I just use the power of magic becauseisayso-ium to assume the two are the same thing, but not the same thing whenever and however it suits my fancy.
 - End of Rant

Getting smaller fighter crews are easy if you lower the deployment times.

People cannot stay up for 3 days without it affecting their combat effectiveness. So you need a rotation of crews, 10-20 crew members can be plausible. My Longspear was mentioned here, it has 21 crew members total, but for three days. So that's more of a seven man crew with three rotations, assuming each person pulls a 24 hour shift, which is absolutely brutal. It'd be closer to a 3-4 man crew with 12 hour rotations, still pretty tough, but nurses pull those shifts all the time... for about four days out of the week too, now that I think about it. (Nurses who are On Call notwithstanding, that's another kettle of fish entirely)

For the Longspear, this could break down to:

1 - Pilot: Monitors engine output, calculates burn times and ensures the vessel establishes and maintains a proper course to the Area of Operations.

2 - Gunner: Ensures that firing solutions are correct, monitors relevant sensor data, monitors craft attitude and speed to ensure firing solution is correct. Monitors and manages the target selections of the Fire Control System and cross checks to ensure that there are no errors or malfunctions. Ensures integrity of all instruments relevant to target selection and fire control.

3 - Weapons Officer: Monitors heat output of weapon systems, ensures weapon is functioning normally, ensures all weapon systems are properly calibrated to firing solution, checks weapon offsets to ensure accurate fire, activates and/or monitors redundant sub-systems or reloads, is responsible for the powering up and powering down of weapons systems, potentially responsible for recycling power systems...

4 - Commander: Communicates with higher officers with regards to mission profile, monitors sensor data to maintain overwatch and spot incoming threats, maintains communication between squadron members and/or carrier, receives and relays course corrections pertaining to engagement of the enemy and carrier position for recovery.

5 - Engineering Officer: Probably crew who have already rotated out, they inspect the ship for leaks, gaskets, fuses, and other fiddly bits that might be damaged or in need of repair. It's a spaceship, and space tends to be... unfriendly. Maintenance is no joke for even the smallest craft, because if something goes wrong, for whatever reason, you're frakked.

These are just hypothetical examples of potential crew functions. Before someone cries "but muh automation", yes you could automate all of these. In an IRL application, you would want to do so. However, you need to make sure that you can automate these things for the designated time period, and for that you need enough power, cooling and "hardware", which costs you mass. (sorry, volume) As a result, the "number of crew" is less a number of persons and more just a number that means nothing, since your "Crew Quarters" are just tonnage dedicated to computer cores, power plants / batteries, radiators / heat sink banks, etc.