One of the subjects that crops up occasionally is the subject of crew quality
in Full Thrust, my ideas on the subject are as follows:
For simplicity, crew quality consists of two factors, the crew themselves, and
the quality of command:
Crew Quality uses the same descriptions as for Dirtside II: Veteran (3)
Regular (2) Green (1)
While Command staff also come in three grades, as in Dirtside, but this time
I've given them descriptive labels:
Good (+2)
Average (+1)
Poor (+0)
These two factors are combined to give an overall Crew quality factor: add the
modifier for command to the number for the crew, this will give
a number in a range of 1 to 5, 1 is worst, 5 is best :-)
(The reason that I split these two factors up is largely for campaign
considerations ATM)
Potentially, crew quality could affect a large number of factors in the game,
but, ATM, I'm restricting it to only a few effects:
Morale.
=======
The morale of a ship can be at three levels; Confident Shaken Broken
Under normal circumstances, most ships will begin a scenario with a morale of
Confident.
During a battle, a ship may need to check morale, this is done by rolling 1D6,
applying any relevant modifiers, should the roll exceed the ships Crew Quality
Factor, then the ship has failed the check, the normal result of this is the
ships Morale worsens by 1 step:
A confident ship functions as described in the rules. A Shaken ship is
considered to have a crew quality factor 1 less than its actual value for the
purposes of initiative (q.v.) A Broken ship will attempt to leave the battle,
if it cannot, it will surrender (see Striking the Colours in More Thrust,
p.8).
These probably need firming up, and will probably require adjudication.
Morale checks are made: When a ship makes a threshold check from general
damage (not WDA weapon special effects). When an allied ship is destroyed.
Morale modifiers are as follows:
Ship intact: +2
Ship has 3 whole hull rows remaining: +1
Ship has only 1 whole hull rows remaining: -1
Ship has less than 1 whole hull row remaining: -2
Ship under the effect of failed Core Threshold check: -2
Fleet Flagship destroyed: -2
If a ship loses its primary bridge due to a core threshold, then it
loses its command staff modifier, lower-ranking officers will take
charge, roll 1D6, adding old command modifier:
1f 1-3, reduce command quality 1 step, 4-5, command quality unaltered,
6+ command quality increased 1 step (cannot go below +0 or above +2).
A ship that is Shaken or Broken may be rallied at the end of the Damage
Control step, the ship makes a moral check (at -1 if broken), if it
succeeds, its moral improves 1 step.
Initiative.
===========
As an alternative to the standard initiative system, use this:
All ships with crew quality factor 5 fire first, in initiative order. then
crew quality factor 4, etc.
Damage Control.
===============
I'm not sure about this bit, but:
Veteran crews get to re-roll 1 damage control roll each turn.
Green crews _must_ re-roll 1 damage control roll _that succeeded_, and
take the second roll, each turn.
Good command staff provide the same bonus as Veteran crews, Poor command staff
provide the same penalty as green crews, command and crew effects are
cumulative.
Ramming.
========
If using the ramming rules in Full Thrust, page 22, to initiate a Ram
requires a morale check with an additional -2 penalty, in replace of the
D6 roll described. Broken ships cannot initiate a ram (unless crewed by
Kra'Vak).
Others.
=======
Crew quality will probably effect boarding actions as well.
Points Cost.
============
The cost of crew/command quality is a factor of the total NPV of the
ship:
Crew:
Veteran: +20%
Regular: +0%
Green: -20%
Command:
Good: +20%
Average: +0%
Poor: -20%
Here's a post from Jan 2000 that may interest you. It sure interested me,
which is why I still have it!
on 02.7.1 4:43 AM, Charles Taylor at nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk scribbleth:
> One of the subjects that crops up occasionally is the subject of crew
=====
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 01:25:49 -0500
From: Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay <kaladorn@home.com>
Subject: Naval Quality Poll [ Long but worth it I hope ]
I'll advance a slightly different standard to what beth suggested, though
along the same lines. Here is what one might want to rate a Star Navy upon.
Note the rating charts at the end are based on my conceptions of how the
historical antecedents molded together to form what we appear to have in the
modern GZGverse so are subject to debate.
Crews:
1) Training - How well was the crew trained? How often? How qualified
and current were the instructors and techniques? How pertinent was the
training? A rating of 1 indicates a crew rarely or poorly trained. A rating of
5 indicates a crew that trains constantly with state of the art technology and
instruction techniques constantly modified to reflect current operational
experience by quality instructors.
2) Professionalism - What are the traditions of the service and how do
its members carry themselves? Do they carry out their duties reluctantly given
the risks or willingly and even enthusiastically? Do they fear the job and its
dangers or do they relish the work and the challenge? Does the service have a
tradition of soldiering on in the face of anything with a stiff upper lip, or
of cutting and running at the first sign of spine in the enemy? A rating of 1
means a very reluctant crew or a crew from a navy with a history of defeat and
no confidence. A rating of 5 means a confident crew willing to
enthusiastically tackle even dangerous work and with a lot of belief in their
own abilities.
3) Experience - Has the average crew likely never fired a shot in anger?
Or has every crew in the service been to hell and back? Will they panic at the
sight of the enemy due to too little experience or too much? Or will they
carry on like veterans even as the hull caves in from missile impacts? A
rating of 1 means an inexperienced and nervous crew, or perhaps a crew beaten
to the point of being broken. A rating of 5 means almost a fatalistic sense of
apathy that allows the crew to operate like a well oiled combat machine or
alternately showing only that spark of fear that makes men perform at 110%,
but that does not control them.
4) Spirit - Are the crew drawn from warrior cultures that train from
youth in martial ways? Or are they from a culture of pacifism? Are they the
kind to take a kick in the teeth as a signal to stay down or to get up, rip
off the leg, and beat the offender to death with it? A rating of 1 means a
group of p'tah unworthy to crawl the bilges of a Klingon
garbage scow, whereas a rating of 5 means a crack crew of Warrior-Poets,
singing as they meet the foe in mortal combat. (Okay, I wax unduly poetic, but
you get the idea).
5) Uniformity - How uniform is the distribution of training, experience,
etc. across their Navy? A rating of 1 implies that their are bastions of high
skill and cess pits of low skill commonly scattered across their forces. A
rating of 5 implies a very even distribution, with no one area having more
than its share of great crews, or of bad ones.
Officer Corps:
1) Training - as above, except as it applies to their officer corps
(command rank)
2) Professionalism - ditto
3) Experience - ditto
4) Freedom To Act - How much freedom to act are officers below flag rank
granted? Can a Captain start a war based on a suspicion? Can he cross a border
to attack an enemy fleet that has not yet done anything but collect? Or is he
afraid to alter his orders to transfer baby food from planet Gerber to planet
Pampers even though the Evil Zargothian Death Hordes have piled across his
borders and headed for his fleet base? A rating of 1 implies extreme timidity,
where officers fear the repercussions of their actions and will not alter even
their most minor of orders without higher authority. A rating of 5 implies
Captains who don't fear to take command of small planets if the need arises.
5) Uniformity - as in the example for crew
Flag Ranks:
1) Training - as above, but as it pertains to flag rank officers and
covering such things as large scale wargames, simulations, live fire
excercises, etc.
2) Professionalism - similarly so
3) Experience - ditto
4) Freedom to Act - Admirals and the like are political beasts, and this
represents how much they feel free to act without the authority of those
higher on the political food chain. A rating of 1 implies political hacks, a
rating of 5 implies a relative impugnity to outside influence and a freedom to
act as necessary.
5) Uniformity - similar to that above, how uniform is the level of flag
rank skills across the upper echelons of the Star Navy?
6) Strategic Insight - A special skill of flag officers and those
involved in the big picture. Can the Admiral be suckered with a simple yet
apparently valuable target a sector away, thus exposing a flank? Or is the
Admiral likely to appear to take the bait while actually suckering the force
that lays a trap for him? Can the Admiral see moves within moves within moves,
or is he lucky to spot broad strategic trends? Is he subtle and perceptive, or
obvious and straightforward? A
rating of 1 suggests a low level of insight - a straightforward player
with little subtlety and little depth of perception. A rating of 5 suggests a
player of so many levels of games most of us would be lost trying to catalogue
them. No act is for such a person an unmotivated
act....
Fleet Vessels:
1) Maintenance Quality - A rating of 1 here implies crews or techs just
barely give the ship enough attention to keep it spaceworthy, whether from
incompetence, apathy, or actual antipathy. A rating of 5 implies the techs
take great care of the ships, with excellent skills, and this is enhanced by
great efforts from motivated crews. Tip top fighting ships.
2) Maintenance Frequency - A rating of 1 implies this Star Navy either
through calumny or through situation presses its ships to or beyond their
normal operational limits without proper maintenance on an
on-going basis. A rating of 5 implies more-than required maintenance
leading to minimal wear.
3) Design Quality - A rating of 1 implies some fool who failed
engineering school drew the plans on a napkin, got a marketing guy, and sold
the plans to the NAC Admiralty. A rating of 5 implies some genius who failed
engineering school because the Philistines couldn't appreciate him drew an
incredible design on a napkin, got a marketing guy, and sold his plans for the
Uberkillership to the NSL Naval Design Board.
4) Average Operational Life - A rating of 1 means ships of this force,
for whatever reason, tend to drop out of service in 60-75% of the
projected normal operational life. A rating of 5 means often times the force
manages to squeeze 200% of the operational life out of its aging yet somehow
still effective vessels.
Now, having come up with these categories, let me suggest some quality levels
Crew TRAIN PROF EXP SPIRIT UNIFORMITY
NAC 4 4 4 4 4 One of the best all around
NSL 4 4 3 4 3 Good, but less uniform
than the NAC
FSE 3 3 3 3 2 Of kind of varying quality
ESU 2 3 4 3 2 varying quality, but have
fought in a lot of spots
NI 3 3 3 4 4 smaller, but good
IF 2 2 3 3 1 given to feudal structure
RH? <I have no idea> IC? <ditto>
OU 3 3 2 3 3 good navy, but can't fight
too much
JAP 4 3 1 3 3 almost never has to fight
SWISS 3 3 1 2 3 good navy, doesn't get out
much
LLAR 2 2 2 3 2 poor and often harried
UNSC 4 3 3 3 3 A force with potential yet
unrealized
FCT 2 2 2 4 2 A little Texican *style*
in space
KNG 3 4 2 3 4 Small, professional,
doesn't fight much though
PAU 2 2 4 3 3 Lots of fights, but not
backed with lots of bucks
KRAVAK 4 4* 4 5 2 * - For different reasons
...
GHURKA 1 3 2 5 4 very small, poor, and
little skilled in ships
New French 2 2 2 3 4
===========================================================
Officer Corps TRAIN PROF EXP FREED UNIFORMITY
NAC 4 4 4 3 4 very professional officer
corps, but some timidity (politics)
NSL 4 4 3 4 4 second best in space
FSE 3 3 3 3 3
ESU 3 3 4 2 3 big, but more variable
than the NAC
NI 3 3 3 3 4 good, but aware of their
limits
IF 2 2 3 3 2 variable with the caliph
in question RH? <I have no idea> IC? <ditto>
OU 3 4 2 3 4 a good force, high
standards
JAP 4 4 2 2 4 well trained, very
disciplined
SWISS 3 3 2 3 3
LLAR 2 2 2 3 2 poorly funded, hard
pressed
UNSC 5 3 2 3 3 great training, big future
once experience acquired
FCT 3 3 3 4 2 some good leaders in this
lot
KNG 3 4 2 4 4 small force with
confidence in its officers
PAU 2 2 3 4 2 not the best disciplined
KRAVAK 4 4* 5 3 2 (as above for note)
GHURKA 2 4 2 3 4 aspire to RN standards
New French 2 3 3 3 4 small cadre of good men
============================================
Flag Officers TRAIN PROF EXP FREED UNIFORMITY STRATINS
NAC 4 4 4 3 4 3 sometimes too
political or timid or arrogant
NSL 3 4 3 4 3 4 dangerously
effective
FSE 3 3 3 3 3 3 best in fighter
warfare
ESU 2 3 4 3 3 4 good at what they
do if allowed by commissars
NI 2 3 2 4 2 3 not a very big
flag staff
IF 1 2 2 4 1 1 often the caliph,
with little training RH? <I have no idea> IC? <ditto>
OU 2 3 2 3 4 3 good solid mid
power
JAP 3 3 1 2 4 3 smart, but
restricted
SWISS 2 3 1 2 4 2 small staff,
rarely tried
LLAR 2 2 2 3 3 2 thrown at the job
UNSC 3 3 2 2 3 3 not bad, ways to
go yet
FCT 2 2 3 5 2 4 some smart
cookies, don't play by rules
KNG 3 4 2 4 4 3 small effective
flag staff
PAU 1 2 2 3 2 2 not well versed
in large fleets
KRAVAK 3 4* 3 4 2 4 dangerous, but
not as much in large forces
GHURKA 1 3 1 3 4 1 haven't really
got this yet
New French 1 3 2 3 4 3 a bit of
background helps the NFR
================================================
Space Fleet:
MAINTQ MAINTF DESIGNQ SERVLIFE
NAC 4 3 2 3 should have hired better designers NSL 4 3 4 3 good german
engineering FSE 3 3 3 3 ESU 2 2 3 3 they run em long n hard NI 4 3 3 4 stretch
to last IF 2 1 2 2 not the pick of the litter RH? <I have no idea> IC? <ditto>
OU 3 3 4 4 built to last because they must JAP 4 4 4 4 hey, it's Japanese
hardware! SWISS 3 3 4 3 good designers, also make watches LLAR 2 1 2 3 don't
know how they last UNSC 3 3 4? not around long enough yet FCT 4 3 3 3 take
care of yer star hoss! KNG 4 4 3 4 sharp bunch PAU 2 2 2 4 it runs, sort of.
KRAVAK 3 3 3 3 nothing special, just alien
GHURKA 2 4 2 4 kept working by frequent reworking
New French 3 4 3 4 another small
power working on long lifespans
Final thoughts: Professionalism isn't always lower than you'd expect because a
nation
wants it so. It is sometimes hard to make work. Same goes for training -
it doesn't reflect always a poor attitude - sometimes just poor tech or
budget or time alloted. And sometimes a limited freedom to act is a result of
politics... such as scarcity of supply. This colours strategy, but doesn't
make bad officers or admirals.
Anyway, as usual, I welcome counterpoints. Hope this was of some interest.
G'night list.
T.
G'day,
> Crew Quality uses the same descriptions as for Dirtside II:
I know you're going for simplicity, but just as a lark you could rate some
cargo hauler crews as 0 and crews of secret mission raider ships (SG/FMA
etc tie in) as 4;)
> Potentially, crew quality could affect a large number of
I like you're morale roll and the way you've let quality modify initiative
rather than firing success (they're still effectively got the edge to get in
first and stuff, neat). I'll try and convince Derek to let us try it in place
of strike the colours in our next muck around to see how it goes.
> Alien Crew Quality
Given their descriptions in the books I'd be tempted (at least occasionally)
to give them veteran crews.
Cheers
In message <A8877251964B294BAB5BA1FC58B43FED613622@molly.tas.csiro.au>
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day,
I have considered this.
> > Potentially, crew quality could affect a large number of
Thanks - it just seemed the simplest way to represent better crews in
FT.
> > Alien Crew Quality
Which (theoretically) would push their cost up.
> Cheers
Thanks,