Major Changes to Crew Accomodation in v5.70 and Introduction of Crew Morale

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Updated Crew Requirements

The following is a list of changes to crew requirements for each module. I'll go through the whole thread and answer the questions when I get a little bit more time.

Active Sensors, Beam/Missile Fire Control, EM/Thermal Sensors, Cloak, Jump Drive, Reactor: was Hull Spaces x5, now Hull Spaces x2.
Asteroid Mining Module: was 100, now 50
Cargo Handling Systems: still 10 each
Compact ECM/ECCM: was 10 now 3.
Damage Control: was 25, now 10
ECM/ECCM: was 20, now 6
Engineering: was 10, now 5
Grav/Geo Sensors: was 25, now 10
Hangar Deck: was 25, now 15
Jump Gate Construction module: now 20% of previous. 100 for base module.
Laser, Meson, Microwave, Particle Beam, Plasma Carronade, Railgun: was Hull Spaces x10. Now Hull Spaces x5.
Magazine: was HSx1.5, now HSx0.5, although min 1.
Maintenance Module: was 125, now 50.
Missile Launcher: was Hull Spaces x Size Modifier x10. Now Hull Spaces x Size Modifier x5
Salvage Module: was 200, now 80.
Shields: was 3 per unit, now 1
Small Craft ECM/ECCM, was 4, now 1
Terraforming Module: Was 200, now 100.
Tractor Beam: was 20, now 10

Jump Drive Changes

All jump drive tech efficiencies have increased by 1, so the tech progression now starts at 4. The research costs are effectively halved as the RP cost for efficiency 5 is now the same as it used to be for 4, etc..

Jump Drive Cost was (JumpDriveHS ^ 2) / 4
Jump Drive Cost now (JumpDriveHS ^ 1.8) / 4

This is a bigger change than it looks. For example, a 10,000 ton efficiency 5 jump drive is now 191 BP instead of 400 BP. A 15,000 ton efficiency 5 jump drive is now 397 BP instead of 900 BP.

Steve

[Moonshadow101]

Really looking forward to having more flexibility with Jump Drives.

[Bgreman]

Updated Crew Requirements

The following is a list of changes to crew requirements for each module. I'll go through the whole thread and answer the questions when I get a little bit more time.

Active Sensors, Beam/Missile Fire Control, EM/Thermal Sensors, Cloak, Jump Drive, Reactor: was Hull Spaces x5, now Hull Spaces x2.
Asteroid Mining Module: was 100, now 50
Cargo Handling Systems: still 10 each
Compact ECM/ECCM: was 10 now 3.
Damage Control: was 25, now 10
ECM/ECCM: was 20, now 6
Engineering: was 10, now 5
Grav/Geo Sensors: was 25, now 10
Hangar Deck: was 25, now 15
Jump Gate Construction module: now 20% of previous. 100 for base module.
Laser, Meson, Microwave, Particle Beam, Plasma Carronade, Railgun: was Hull Spaces x10. Now Hull Spaces x5.
Magazine: was HSx1.5, now HSx0.5, although min 1.
Maintenance Module: was 125, now 50.
Missile Launcher: was Hull Spaces x Size Modifier x10. Now Hull Spaces x Size Modifier x5
Salvage Module: was 200, now 80.
Shields: was 3 per unit, now 1
Small Craft ECM/ECCM, was 4, now 1
Terraforming Module: Was 200, now 100.
Tractor Beam: was 20, now 10

Steve

Might I suggest that in addition to reducing the base crew per module, the crew for multiple modules be reduced as well?  It is unlikely that crew needs scale linearly with multiple copies of the same module.  I've posted a breakdown before, but figuring crew as:

Total Crew for Same Modules = Crew / Module * sqrt (Number of Modules)

or some other function more flat than linear would feel more realistic.

[bean]

Read the article and point taken, I guess that hard science wasent really covered in my economics degree.

I would be surprised if it was.   

I've been thinking about the crewing situation, and have several ideas for changes, either in 5.7, or future versions.
1. Officer auto assignment.
Would it be possible to get the auto-assign to assign officers that don't have crew training ratings or the relevant abilities, after all the officers with relevant abilities are assigned?  I tend to try to fill those slots, but in a large games, it's sort of a chore.
2. Crew rotation and pool tracking.
I find the current system to be incredibly simplistic.  You have two levels, conscript and pool.  Nothing else, and unless I'm mistaken, the crew persists forever.  Also, the crew will stay with a ship forever, and then magic people appear on scrapping.
Here's my suggestion.  First, the crew pool tracks people and points separately.  The academy has a level that it pumps people in at.  For example, it may add 100 people and 20000 points in a given week.  These are added to the pool values.  When a ship is commissioned, it takes the correct number of people and points, based on the pool averages.  Adjusting the academy training level only affects the inflow, not what's already in the pool.  Also, people should leave the pool.  Maybe 5% a year, of average points.  There might be a way to stop it, but only in wartime, and I'm not sure how that would work.
Second, rotate people on ships.  To make it easy, whenever a ship gets shore leave, a certain number of people rotate back into the pool, based on how long it's been out.  Maybe 10% per year.  They're replaced with normal people from the pool.
Third, allow picked crews, and maybe unpicked crews.  These have maybe 150% and 50% of normal points, respectively, taking the appropriate number of people and points from the pool, and getting those values when the crew rotates.
3. Automation of ships.
Automation has several effects.  First, no crew required (obviously).  Second, no onboard repair.  Thirdly, no captain, and the crew grade is fixed, and set by the level of automation system you use.  Fourth, there is a fixed "fleet training rating" that can't be altered, and is also set by the automation system.  Fifth, docking with a crewed ship should be able to repair the vessel, and maybe reduce the maintainence clock some.  Something like the shore leave system, where you have "time since last tune-up" and "time since last overhaul".

That's all of my thoughts for now, but I might have more later.

[sloanjh]

Split out thread-drift posts into an "Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation" thread in mechanics.

John

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I REALLY like this idea - I've been worried about the micromanagement that would need to be associated with my small WP picket stations.  The "realistic" way to manage it would be to allow crew rotation through the "CFN", but since that's not representable in Aurora mechanics it's easier just to ignore crewing for commercials.  NOTE: In order to avoid exploits, you should probably require something like 3 month's worth of berthing space in order for a design to be classified as commercial (and avoid the morale degradations).

John

Yes, that's not a bad idea. The other option may be to simply let commercials suffer the consequences. In most cases, they aren't going to suffer due to low morale because they won't use crew grade and fleet training very often anyway. On the rare occasions when they do, they will be noticeably less able than warship crews, which might not be an unreasonable scenario.

EDIT: In fact both may be reasonable. A commercial designation requires at least 3 months berthing space to avoid 'gaming the system' but commercials still suffer the effects because they are unlikely to be of consequence.

Steve

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Also, people should leave the pool.  Maybe 5% a year, of average points.  There might be a way to stop it, but only in wartime, and I'm not sure how that would work.

--> Opens the door for new longevity/cybertech biology techs that increase pop growth and reduce crew bleed rates.

Third, allow picked crews, and maybe unpicked crews.  These have maybe 150% and 50% of normal points, respectively, taking the appropriate number of people and points from the pool, and getting those values when the crew rotates.

I like this. It would be a simple and elegant solution to the weirdness of crew grade.  Also, when you scrap an older ship, your highly trained crew would no longer vanish into the void. xD

[bean]

--> Opens the door for new longevity/cybertech biology techs that increase pop growth and reduce crew bleed rates.

I see that more as an officer retention thing.  But it could work for this, too.

[voknaar]

My thinking of shore leave is quite a bit different from everyone. I think that it isn't unreasonable to have bars nightclubs brothels etc with a very small population. You are limited by the choice of the options available, in reality, not by having a lack options themselves in small towns. I've seen a guy operate out of a small town brewing his own beer from his garage at night, providing the local bar with beer. While by day he is the towns mechanic using his own garage to service the cars. I think its great ingenuity and is likely passed on colonial thinking. In fact it's quite common to see small towns/villages to be built to accommodate holidaying crews & tourists. Here in New Zealand its absolutely vital to our economic survival. Regardless of the effects of the recession. Christchurch has a port and its own port community called Lyttelton which only has a few thousand people in the whole area. Its well known (but not advertised) to have a very high concentration of nightlife of all variety's. Prostitution was decriminalized here at some point during 2000-2005.

So I guess all I'm saying is crew exchange/holidaying should certainly be doable because there are examples of it working all over the globe in remote spots with lesser numbers. I heard a joke once "If you only have 3 people making up a town, 1 will always be the designated town harlot".

[UnLimiTeD]

Shouldn't Freighter crews be cycled when reaching a large population?

[oleg]

Would the simplest solution be that a combination of a commercial spaceport and military academy on a planet, flag that population as valid for crew rotation. Since they already have their own levels a simple rule can be checked to calculate the supported rotation rate.

The commercial spaceport concept can be extended to not only technical installations but also to bars, entertainment and brothels that you see around normal ports as mentioned before.

Military academy presence is outputting personnel anyway and by consuming them as relief crew for harboring ships, that loop is closed as well.

By following this idea it increase the need for serious presence in a system as well instead of just having simple forward bases.

[UnLimiTeD]

On military ships, you wouldn't want that, you want your Elite crews to stick on one ship.

[Havear]

I was against the idea of crew rotation on commercial ships because I felt it added unnecessary complexity and wouldn't follow the maintenance precedent. However, if crew need to be rotated and Steve is willing to change commercial maintenance rules a bit, I wouldn't mind a rare ship exploding for no apparent reason, vaporizing the cargo of whatever I had contracted because the owner decided to pinch a few credits and wait a month longer for the next overhaul.

[oleg]

On military ships, you wouldn't want that, you want your Elite crews to stick on one ship.

I agree on that and still your elite crew can't be running that ship for 100% of their time.

That's why I was thinking higher spaceport ranking, the faster a crew can be used again or higher military academy ranking the more elite crews you can compose.

[xeryon]

I still like the concept of having more then one officer on a ship:  Additional Jr Officers can be assigned based on the modules.