endersig
September 21st, 2004, 01:21 AM
My party and I have been toying around with the idea of a Fully Automated (FA) Starship in Traveller. well, FA is not quite the right term, since the robots on board would be programmed to obey its captain and only its captain, but still. anybody see any problem with a nearly entirly robotic Crew?
TheEngineer
September 21st, 2004, 02:27 AM
Perhaps the savest way for space traffic...
As present air-traffic already is automated to a large degree, I see no problem here.
Question might be, why do you need any robots ?
O.k. as stewards, mechanics and perhaps security. Most other jobs could be accomplished by the ships computer.
As present air-traffic already is automated to a large degree, I see no problem here.
Question might be, why do you need any robots ?
O.k. as stewards, mechanics and perhaps security. Most other jobs could be accomplished by the ships computer.
signless
September 21st, 2004, 02:32 AM
I always though Anne McCaffrey's "Ship Who Sang" novels were an excellent approach to this idea. Instead of clanking metal robutts whirring around the place...make the entire ship an NPC. graemlins/file_22.gif
GM:"The Zhodani start firing their FGMP's at you...what'll you do?"
Players turn to ShipNPC:"Heh. Why, we'll ask her to RETURN fire, of course."
Rollrollrollrollrollrollrollrollroll.
GM:"The Zhodani are smoking quite ominously from their VERY deep foxhole, now..." :D
I think automated ships are a GREAT idea. Especially if your players want to take a more active role in their games.
GM:"The Zhodani start firing their FGMP's at you...what'll you do?"
Players turn to ShipNPC:"Heh. Why, we'll ask her to RETURN fire, of course."
Rollrollrollrollrollrollrollrollroll.
GM:"The Zhodani are smoking quite ominously from their VERY deep foxhole, now..." :D
I think automated ships are a GREAT idea. Especially if your players want to take a more active role in their games.
Nurd_boy
September 21st, 2004, 02:46 AM
endersig, try saberhagin's Berserkers
AI ships with attitudes.
AI ships with attitudes.
mike wightman
September 21st, 2004, 02:47 AM
For a small group of players, say 2or 3, to operate a ship much bigger than a scout or a free trader will require NPC crew.
Unless the ref does a fantastic job of bringing these NPC's to life they remain pretty faceless, almost robotic dice rolling machines.
So they may as well be robots ;)
Unless the ref does a fantastic job of bringing these NPC's to life they remain pretty faceless, almost robotic dice rolling machines.
So they may as well be robots ;)
Whipsnade
September 21st, 2004, 06:18 AM
endersig wrote:
"...anybody see any problem with a nearly entirly robotic Crew?"
Mr. Endersig,
Sure, lots. Don't forget the First Law of Instrumentation and Control - The more a system does, the more it needs to be supervised. Insert 'robot' for 'system' and you'll see the problem immediately.
You also need to realize that your 'normal' PC crewed starship is pretty much automated already. The crew monitors systems and indicates changes when and where necessary. Take your comm officer for example; Does he manually aim the maser? Manually adjust for doppler effects between moving ships? Manually keep the laser/maser on target? Of course not, all that is down by the system he monitors. You can extend this example to nearly every shipboard system. Does the engineroom gang manually adjust internal gravity and inertial dampers during each maneuver?
Your solo captain is going to have his hands full monitoring and directing all those robots. When will he sleep? Eat? Even defecate?
MT added a robot ops skill, a much needed skill IMHO. If you took CT at face value, any old Whipsnade could waddle aboard his scout/courier, tell the robo-pilot/navigator/engineer to take him to Tenalphi, and spend the rest of the trip lounging about his stateroom in a lovely alcoholic stupor.
In MT, robot ops skill was required to use a robot to its programming's best level. Any old schmoe could instruct a janitor 'bot to clean a stateroom, although the results may not entirely copacetic, but only someone with robot ops skills - and a few levels to boot - would have a good chance of getting a navigator 'bot to produce anything but a barely serviceable jump plot.
Now, all these are merely the collected opinions of a foolish old fat man. The only thing that really matters is what You want in Your Game. If you and your players enjoy tooling around in a flying Automat then by all means DO IT! You are all having fun, and that is the only thing that counts!
Sincerely,
Larsen
"...anybody see any problem with a nearly entirly robotic Crew?"
Mr. Endersig,
Sure, lots. Don't forget the First Law of Instrumentation and Control - The more a system does, the more it needs to be supervised. Insert 'robot' for 'system' and you'll see the problem immediately.
You also need to realize that your 'normal' PC crewed starship is pretty much automated already. The crew monitors systems and indicates changes when and where necessary. Take your comm officer for example; Does he manually aim the maser? Manually adjust for doppler effects between moving ships? Manually keep the laser/maser on target? Of course not, all that is down by the system he monitors. You can extend this example to nearly every shipboard system. Does the engineroom gang manually adjust internal gravity and inertial dampers during each maneuver?
Your solo captain is going to have his hands full monitoring and directing all those robots. When will he sleep? Eat? Even defecate?
MT added a robot ops skill, a much needed skill IMHO. If you took CT at face value, any old Whipsnade could waddle aboard his scout/courier, tell the robo-pilot/navigator/engineer to take him to Tenalphi, and spend the rest of the trip lounging about his stateroom in a lovely alcoholic stupor.
In MT, robot ops skill was required to use a robot to its programming's best level. Any old schmoe could instruct a janitor 'bot to clean a stateroom, although the results may not entirely copacetic, but only someone with robot ops skills - and a few levels to boot - would have a good chance of getting a navigator 'bot to produce anything but a barely serviceable jump plot.
Now, all these are merely the collected opinions of a foolish old fat man. The only thing that really matters is what You want in Your Game. If you and your players enjoy tooling around in a flying Automat then by all means DO IT! You are all having fun, and that is the only thing that counts!
Sincerely,
Larsen
DaveChase
September 21st, 2004, 08:21 AM
Well the Hivers don't seem to have any problem with this. They use robots and automation alot in their ship designs and such
Dave
Dave
Evo Plurion
September 21st, 2004, 09:12 AM
It depends entirely on the sophistication of artificial intelligence in your Traveller universe. Present-day rudimentary AI is capable of much more than what the OTU would have us believe. I believe that in a Traveller campaign geared towards realism, automated starships would be the rule, while manually-operated ships would be the exception.
veltyen
September 21st, 2004, 10:28 AM
*cough* virus *cough*
The only problems I see with a fully automated ship is sabotage and unexpected programming errors. Both are only partly mitigated by having crew arround, but anything threatening the ship also threatens the crew, it won't be scaring the underpaid code-jockey who wrote up the "fuel scooping algorithm" for your automatic pilot.
The only problems I see with a fully automated ship is sabotage and unexpected programming errors. Both are only partly mitigated by having crew arround, but anything threatening the ship also threatens the crew, it won't be scaring the underpaid code-jockey who wrote up the "fuel scooping algorithm" for your automatic pilot.
Morte
September 21st, 2004, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
For a small group of players, say 2or 3, to operate a ship much bigger than a scout or a free trader will require NPC crew.
Unless the ref does a fantastic job of bringing these NPC's to life they remain pretty faceless, almost robotic dice rolling machines.
So they may as well be robots ;) This rambles, but there is eventually a point.
I run a game with one player.
We started out in a detached scout (they were scout intel types) with a talker/shooter/pilot PC, a engineer/door-opener/oddments party NPC, an autodoc, and after a few sessions a robot steward/cleaner. The automation worked out pretty well there -- I only had to invent one NPC personality, and having machines instead of people freed up cabins for passengers (i.e. adventures).
That worked OK.
After I killed the PC, we started again in a 200 dton ship on an exploratory trading ticket for Hortalez. There's a PC (talker/broker/pilot) and a party NPC (rogue/shooter) on a share of profits, plus two salaried lower level NPCs (engineer and medic/steward) who do not "adventure". This is a merchant game and I went for sophs over machines for financial reasons as much as anything -- the profit/loss calculations assume a crew of about four each using a cabin and life support, robots would make the finances too easy.
I invented some NPCs who are easy and fun to play: the rogue adventurer is a Vargr with an Italian accent who calls the PC "patrone", the engineer is an Ursa with an other-worldy deadpan way of speaking, and the medic-steward is a feisty 26 year old woman of mysterious noble background who wears a bejewelled court sword when she's sweeping the cabins. Mildly OTT characters are less work to run than a bunch of subtly-defined humans.
And that works OK too.
So, from a "running a game and making it fun" point of view, ship automation doesn't seem to be a problem. It's just a tool you can use to put a game together if you wish. It could be great, or a disenfranchiser, depending what sort of game you want and what sort of roles the players want their PCs to have.
From a technical "could you really do this" perspective, I'm inclined to say it really needs true AI if you're going to give the computer complete control of the ship. That would be a problem in OTU, though you could swing something with non-psycho viruses if you go far enough into TNE. Perhaps you should check out 1248, endersig.
In my non-OTU backup setting I've sketched for "next time I kill the PC he might not want to come back as a pilot", Sapient AIs capable of running ships are just starting to appear. So you can have a beat up old tramp with a crew of PCs, or a shiny new AI-flown ship that's more of a conveyance and mobile base.
For a small group of players, say 2or 3, to operate a ship much bigger than a scout or a free trader will require NPC crew.
Unless the ref does a fantastic job of bringing these NPC's to life they remain pretty faceless, almost robotic dice rolling machines.
So they may as well be robots ;) This rambles, but there is eventually a point.
I run a game with one player.
We started out in a detached scout (they were scout intel types) with a talker/shooter/pilot PC, a engineer/door-opener/oddments party NPC, an autodoc, and after a few sessions a robot steward/cleaner. The automation worked out pretty well there -- I only had to invent one NPC personality, and having machines instead of people freed up cabins for passengers (i.e. adventures).
That worked OK.
After I killed the PC, we started again in a 200 dton ship on an exploratory trading ticket for Hortalez. There's a PC (talker/broker/pilot) and a party NPC (rogue/shooter) on a share of profits, plus two salaried lower level NPCs (engineer and medic/steward) who do not "adventure". This is a merchant game and I went for sophs over machines for financial reasons as much as anything -- the profit/loss calculations assume a crew of about four each using a cabin and life support, robots would make the finances too easy.
I invented some NPCs who are easy and fun to play: the rogue adventurer is a Vargr with an Italian accent who calls the PC "patrone", the engineer is an Ursa with an other-worldy deadpan way of speaking, and the medic-steward is a feisty 26 year old woman of mysterious noble background who wears a bejewelled court sword when she's sweeping the cabins. Mildly OTT characters are less work to run than a bunch of subtly-defined humans.
And that works OK too.
So, from a "running a game and making it fun" point of view, ship automation doesn't seem to be a problem. It's just a tool you can use to put a game together if you wish. It could be great, or a disenfranchiser, depending what sort of game you want and what sort of roles the players want their PCs to have.
From a technical "could you really do this" perspective, I'm inclined to say it really needs true AI if you're going to give the computer complete control of the ship. That would be a problem in OTU, though you could swing something with non-psycho viruses if you go far enough into TNE. Perhaps you should check out 1248, endersig.
In my non-OTU backup setting I've sketched for "next time I kill the PC he might not want to come back as a pilot", Sapient AIs capable of running ships are just starting to appear. So you can have a beat up old tramp with a crew of PCs, or a shiny new AI-flown ship that's more of a conveyance and mobile base.
BetterThanLife
September 21st, 2004, 11:55 AM
Sure you can have an automated ship. The Canon one is in Adventure 12 CT Secrets of the Ancients. (Though Adventure 1, The Kinunir is close.) Of course there are obviously also problems with Automated ships, Adventure 1 The Kinunir and Adventure 12 Secrets of the Ancients. smile.gif And of course there is always Virus...
I, however, like the idea that it takes a human mind to pick the right course in Jump Space for optimum effect. (Like Andromeda, where a pilot is required even though the ship is incredibly intelligent and shows initiative but can't navigate.) Then the ship doesn't need anyone aboard to actually function but a Pilot to travel through Hyperspace and a human or three to run down and troubleshoot problems.
Of course there is always the lesson from Honor of the Queen, by David Weber and letting a computer control your defenses and attacks.
I, however, like the idea that it takes a human mind to pick the right course in Jump Space for optimum effect. (Like Andromeda, where a pilot is required even though the ship is incredibly intelligent and shows initiative but can't navigate.) Then the ship doesn't need anyone aboard to actually function but a Pilot to travel through Hyperspace and a human or three to run down and troubleshoot problems.
Of course there is always the lesson from Honor of the Queen, by David Weber and letting a computer control your defenses and attacks.
mike wightman
September 21st, 2004, 03:53 PM
Using LBB:8 Robots you can build a robot, or several robots, that have the skills to operate a ship with skill level 4 expertise in all areas straight out of the box at TL12...
...it costs a bit though graemlins/file_23.gif
...it costs a bit though graemlins/file_23.gif
hirch duckfinder
September 21st, 2004, 05:23 PM
present day aeroplanes are automated to a large degree. however they always have pilots because the consequences of problems are so large (i.e. fall down , die) . the adaptability of humans to unpredicable situations and their self-preservation instincts make them preferable as a last line of saftey to another layer of machines.
i see no reason for this to be different aboard a starship .
i see no reason for this to be different aboard a starship .
mike wightman
September 21st, 2004, 05:30 PM
I may be remembering this wrong, and it could be entirely anecdotal, but aren't there more air disasters attributal to pilot error than equipment failure?
far-trader
September 21st, 2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I may be remembering this wrong, and it could be entirely anecdotal, but aren't there more air disasters attributal to pilot error than equipment failure? Attributed almost certainly. Attributal is debatable. Pilots (being usually dead) are easier to blame, especially when no mechanical fault can be found (or proven). A reason to close the case seems to be the end goal and "pilot error" is the easiest in some cases. But then I may be representing just one side of a biased issue.
I may be remembering this wrong, and it could be entirely anecdotal, but aren't there more air disasters attributal to pilot error than equipment failure? Attributed almost certainly. Attributal is debatable. Pilots (being usually dead) are easier to blame, especially when no mechanical fault can be found (or proven). A reason to close the case seems to be the end goal and "pilot error" is the easiest in some cases. But then I may be representing just one side of a biased issue.
mike wightman
September 21st, 2004, 06:16 PM
I've no idea about the truth of the matter.
What is for certain is that ther is no way you would get me on a plane that didn't have a human pilot (even one that's been partying all night long with the flight attendants ;) ;) )
What is for certain is that ther is no way you would get me on a plane that didn't have a human pilot (even one that's been partying all night long with the flight attendants ;) ;) )
BetterThanLife
September 21st, 2004, 07:01 PM
Of the major air disasters, where commercial planes go down, most of those have been the results of hostile action. Then there was the collision on the ground attributed to a miscommunication and the engine falling off the plane at O'Hare. Lots of the little planes are attributed to pilot error but several plane accidents on those attributed to poor maintenance. Pilot error is the stock answer when no other explaination is forthcoming.
Where you have the big pilot error problems is when planes are pushed against the envelope and doing things they really weren't supposed to be doing in the first place. (Usually military applications.) Like flying too low and catching a powerline, pulling too many Gs and getting disoriented. Those are pilot error problems. In some cases because the pilot outflew his capabilities or there was a mechanical failure or computer glitch that nobody can find the world will never know for sure.
Where you have the big pilot error problems is when planes are pushed against the envelope and doing things they really weren't supposed to be doing in the first place. (Usually military applications.) Like flying too low and catching a powerline, pulling too many Gs and getting disoriented. Those are pilot error problems. In some cases because the pilot outflew his capabilities or there was a mechanical failure or computer glitch that nobody can find the world will never know for sure.
Whipsnade
September 22nd, 2004, 12:23 AM
Bhoins wrote:
"Of the major air disasters, where commercial planes go down, most of those have been the results of hostile action."
Mr. Bhoins,
Huh? Please explain this further. I find the idea intriguing.
Sincerely,
Larsen
"Of the major air disasters, where commercial planes go down, most of those have been the results of hostile action."
Mr. Bhoins,
Huh? Please explain this further. I find the idea intriguing.
Sincerely,
Larsen
BetterThanLife
September 22nd, 2004, 01:07 PM
Certainly. Commercial Airliners that go down virtually always make the news. SO they are fairly easy to keep track of. Since the early 80s there have been a handful of commercial liners that went down to hostile action. PanAm Flight 108, Lockerbie Scotland (Terrorist), KLM Flight 007 near Vladivostock (Russian Fighter), September 11, 2001 4 planes NY, NY, VA and PN (Terrorist), Recently Aeroflot 2 planes (Terrorist). I seem to recall two planes going off the end of the Runway at Laguardia, NY and into the water in the same time frame and The French lost a Concorde to mechanical failure, but there aren't all that many AirLiner crashes especially with total loss of life in the same time frame.
In the two incidents at Laguardia, I don't believe there was loss of life, which would classify those not as crashes but emergency hard landings. (Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.)
So in the past 20 or so years that is 8 enemy action crashes which would make it the number one reason an Airliner goes down. I might be off because I am doing this from memory but it appears to be right. I mean in the same timeframe we had the roof come off the plane near Hawaii, (Landed safely) Several engines come off, and the tail cone fall off a DC9 but all of those resulted in landings of the aircraft not crashes.
Did I miss any?
Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
Bhoins wrote:
"Of the major air disasters, where commercial planes go down, most of those have been the results of hostile action."
Mr. Bhoins,
Huh? Please explain this further. I find the idea intriguing.
Sincerely,
Larsen
In the two incidents at Laguardia, I don't believe there was loss of life, which would classify those not as crashes but emergency hard landings. (Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.)
So in the past 20 or so years that is 8 enemy action crashes which would make it the number one reason an Airliner goes down. I might be off because I am doing this from memory but it appears to be right. I mean in the same timeframe we had the roof come off the plane near Hawaii, (Landed safely) Several engines come off, and the tail cone fall off a DC9 but all of those resulted in landings of the aircraft not crashes.
Did I miss any?
Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
Bhoins wrote:
"Of the major air disasters, where commercial planes go down, most of those have been the results of hostile action."
Mr. Bhoins,
Huh? Please explain this further. I find the idea intriguing.
Sincerely,
Larsen
far-trader
September 22nd, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
Did I miss any?I think it was within your time frame but I don't recall the details. The was a total (iirc) loss of a jet in a crash landing in the midwest I think. And (this might be outside the time frame or not large enough) the plane that went into the Potomac with a handful rescued from the water by a news chopper and bystanders. Off the top of my head and limited to just news events in North America. I seem to recall more than a few crashes in South America the last few years, usually attributed to pilot error (flying into the ground in fog iirc, in terrain where the ground jumps up quite rapidly, ie mountainous). And there was the jet that crashed into the water just off a beach full of tourists in some tropical location.
The more I think the more I recall but no details so I'm not sure they fit your time frame, or how far one should go back for a fair comparison.
There was also an airline that crashed due to a faulty cargo door latch that the airlines tried to cover up, and would have but for the parents of one victim from Australia travelling and investigating on their own time and money.
See what I mean about thinking. Anyway before these started coming back to me your post had me thinking maybe you were right, and you might be for the more recent history, but I think not for a little longer view.
Did I miss any?I think it was within your time frame but I don't recall the details. The was a total (iirc) loss of a jet in a crash landing in the midwest I think. And (this might be outside the time frame or not large enough) the plane that went into the Potomac with a handful rescued from the water by a news chopper and bystanders. Off the top of my head and limited to just news events in North America. I seem to recall more than a few crashes in South America the last few years, usually attributed to pilot error (flying into the ground in fog iirc, in terrain where the ground jumps up quite rapidly, ie mountainous). And there was the jet that crashed into the water just off a beach full of tourists in some tropical location.
The more I think the more I recall but no details so I'm not sure they fit your time frame, or how far one should go back for a fair comparison.
There was also an airline that crashed due to a faulty cargo door latch that the airlines tried to cover up, and would have but for the parents of one victim from Australia travelling and investigating on their own time and money.
See what I mean about thinking. Anyway before these started coming back to me your post had me thinking maybe you were right, and you might be for the more recent history, but I think not for a little longer view.
Malenfant
September 22nd, 2004, 02:09 PM
There was also the case of a passenger plane flying over... Peru? Chile? at night several years ago (early 90s, I think?). Some mechanical problem occurred anyway, I don't recall if it was engines or gyros, but it actually ended up practically flying upsidedown because of it, which caused it to stall and smack into the forest below.
There was a Horizon program on it in the UK, IIRC. (that was very vague and not very helpful, I know ;) . I'm sure someone must know what I mean). The thing that stuck in my mind (other than the computer simulation of the plane turning upsidedown) was the fact that they found bodies of the passengers around the crash site, and they were all naked. Apparently when planes crash the force of impact actually strips clothing off. :confused:
There was a Horizon program on it in the UK, IIRC. (that was very vague and not very helpful, I know ;) . I'm sure someone must know what I mean). The thing that stuck in my mind (other than the computer simulation of the plane turning upsidedown) was the fact that they found bodies of the passengers around the crash site, and they were all naked. Apparently when planes crash the force of impact actually strips clothing off. :confused:
mike wightman
September 22nd, 2004, 03:00 PM
Check the statistics here (http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Disasters.htm)
BetterThanLife
September 22nd, 2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Check the statistics here (http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Disasters.htm) See memory is a fleeting thing. smile.gif I had forgotten about the Airbus the Vincennes shot down. There are quite a few more hostile actions than I thought there would be before the 80s. And while they are listed as disasters some of them clearly aren't. 2 seriously injured isn't a crash it is a hard landing. One guy suffering pnemonia from a blunt force trauma as a result of turbulence and dying two weeks later at age 84? smile.gif But it is an instructive list.
This list includes planes that definitely wouldn't be considered airliners (in fact, from a short glance, one of them is definitely a helicopter), but quite a few of these didn't make the headlines. The helicopter did and I remember the accident. (It was the last flight to land on the PanAm Building in NYC.)
Thanks for the reference. I stand corrected. (Though it looks kinda funny. smile.gif )
Check the statistics here (http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Disasters.htm) See memory is a fleeting thing. smile.gif I had forgotten about the Airbus the Vincennes shot down. There are quite a few more hostile actions than I thought there would be before the 80s. And while they are listed as disasters some of them clearly aren't. 2 seriously injured isn't a crash it is a hard landing. One guy suffering pnemonia from a blunt force trauma as a result of turbulence and dying two weeks later at age 84? smile.gif But it is an instructive list.
This list includes planes that definitely wouldn't be considered airliners (in fact, from a short glance, one of them is definitely a helicopter), but quite a few of these didn't make the headlines. The helicopter did and I remember the accident. (It was the last flight to land on the PanAm Building in NYC.)
Thanks for the reference. I stand corrected. (Though it looks kinda funny. smile.gif )
BetterThanLife
September 22nd, 2004, 04:10 PM
I don't see anyone getting shot down on this database. Sorry couldn't resist, perhaps it falls under human error not pilot. (though wouldn't passenger shooting the pilot also fit in this category? smile.gif )
The notable causes by category has two very long lists, Sabotage/Bomb and Hijacking resulting in Fatalities are two of the three longest lists. (Fuel Starvation being between those two.)
But I still stand corrected. smile.gif (And it still looks funny.)
Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Did I miss any? Lots: according to this database (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm), sabotage/hijacking/hostile action is still third place behind mechanical failure and weather as non-pilot error causes for aircraft mishaps involving fatalities.
Don't be fooled by what makes the front page. </font>[/QUOTE]
The notable causes by category has two very long lists, Sabotage/Bomb and Hijacking resulting in Fatalities are two of the three longest lists. (Fuel Starvation being between those two.)
But I still stand corrected. smile.gif (And it still looks funny.)
Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Did I miss any? Lots: according to this database (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm), sabotage/hijacking/hostile action is still third place behind mechanical failure and weather as non-pilot error causes for aircraft mishaps involving fatalities.
Don't be fooled by what makes the front page. </font>[/QUOTE]
Wayne
September 27th, 2004, 12:46 PM
Bringing this back on subject. ;)
I have, for the last 8 years, work on or for small Canadian Navy ships (MCDVs) that can be run by a minimum of 2 people. One person on the Bridge watching/responding to all outside encounters, and one person in the Machinery Control Room watching/responding to all internal problems. The 'only' limit is that at some point, the people need rest. But with a crew of 6, you could sail as long as the food and fuel last and you have no equipment breakdowns.
The real world crew size is normally around 30+ people with a maximum crew of 39, 45 if extra accommodations are put onboard.
If we can do this now, I see no reason why ships in the OTU or YTU can’t be fully automated.
I have, for the last 8 years, work on or for small Canadian Navy ships (MCDVs) that can be run by a minimum of 2 people. One person on the Bridge watching/responding to all outside encounters, and one person in the Machinery Control Room watching/responding to all internal problems. The 'only' limit is that at some point, the people need rest. But with a crew of 6, you could sail as long as the food and fuel last and you have no equipment breakdowns.
The real world crew size is normally around 30+ people with a maximum crew of 39, 45 if extra accommodations are put onboard.
If we can do this now, I see no reason why ships in the OTU or YTU can’t be fully automated.
far-trader
September 27th, 2004, 01:05 PM
Actually I kinda see this level of automation as the defining level of the required crew formula in Traveller, and as a side topic, partly explaining the size of the computers. So imtu the ships and boats are already optimized for automation.
The differences in TL of the computer and model number allow better response (faster combat response mostly), more crew substitution (hence bigger ships need bigger computers), and define the type of interface (button punching and defined programs up to voice command and limited a.i. to full blown personality a.i.)
The experimental stealth boat(? ship?) the US is working on is crewed iirc by just 3 (a bridge officer, an engineer, and a rover) and a computer.
The differences in TL of the computer and model number allow better response (faster combat response mostly), more crew substitution (hence bigger ships need bigger computers), and define the type of interface (button punching and defined programs up to voice command and limited a.i. to full blown personality a.i.)
The experimental stealth boat(? ship?) the US is working on is crewed iirc by just 3 (a bridge officer, an engineer, and a rover) and a computer.
robject
October 2nd, 2004, 02:55 PM
Bringing the topic completely back on track: I recently read a very old article from one of the first four JTAS, regarding the design of robots who can operate starships. For a bit over Cr500,000, one can buy a robot who has Pilot-3. For Cr100,000, one can buy a robot who has Navigation-1, or Medic-1, or Gunnery-4! You can see where this is going.
As mentioned in earlier posts, these robots -- especially the pilot -- may not be able to respond to unique situations, and will have maintenance issues once in awhile. However, they will, in general, perform as good as humans, and I think they make good economic sense in many cases.
As mentioned in earlier posts, these robots -- especially the pilot -- may not be able to respond to unique situations, and will have maintenance issues once in awhile. However, they will, in general, perform as good as humans, and I think they make good economic sense in many cases.
mike wightman
October 2nd, 2004, 03:24 PM
Hmm, crew salaries versus loan payments to buy said robots...
Malenfant
October 2nd, 2004, 03:28 PM
Why shouldn't automated ships be possible in Traveller? Especially X-Boats. It should be fairly trivial to program the X-Boat ship computer to jump to the target system and broadcast its messages at the given time.
After all, we have fairly complex automated/robotic spacecraft now...
After all, we have fairly complex automated/robotic spacecraft now...
mike wightman
October 2nd, 2004, 03:37 PM
The only reson this isn't done in the 3rd Imperium setting is the cultural bias against the use of robots.
Most of the other states in known space have no such prejudice and probably use them.
Most of the other states in known space have no such prejudice and probably use them.
Malenfant
October 2nd, 2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The only reson this isn't done in the 3rd Imperium setting is the cultural bias against the use of robots.
I'm not even talking about "robots", in the sense of needing humans on board to tell robots what to do.
We already can (or at least, are a matter of years away from the stage where one can effectively) quite easily program a computer to do tasks like taking a preset sequence of images at a certain time, firing engines for a certain (precise) duration, locking on to a target and broadcasting a signal etc - all with very little (if any) human guidance. Certainly for something like X-Boats this would be a fine solution.
Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. But some things in traveller can certainly be done on automatic.
The only reson this isn't done in the 3rd Imperium setting is the cultural bias against the use of robots.
I'm not even talking about "robots", in the sense of needing humans on board to tell robots what to do.
We already can (or at least, are a matter of years away from the stage where one can effectively) quite easily program a computer to do tasks like taking a preset sequence of images at a certain time, firing engines for a certain (precise) duration, locking on to a target and broadcasting a signal etc - all with very little (if any) human guidance. Certainly for something like X-Boats this would be a fine solution.
Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. But some things in traveller can certainly be done on automatic.
robject
October 2nd, 2004, 04:09 PM
In fact, I suspect X-Boats IMTU are fully automated; that is, the "robot brain" which allows independent decision-making is either part of the ship design or (more likely) is networked into the pilot's station. Either way, the human is unnecessary.
I suspect the human will be there anyway, for whatever grab-bag of reasons. Hmm, what reasons can I come up with?
(1) Scout transfer. What a rotten way to transfer personnel. Still, there it is.
(2) "Human Backup". Probably more PR than reality.
(3) Experience. Well, why not? Maybe Scouts can gain Astrography experience this way. It's still a horrible assignment.
And as far as gunnery goes, if the ship's sensors can detect and lock onto a target, then the ship's guns can fire on that target. Depends on how proven the technology is IYTU, I think.
The JTAS article I was referring to did not talk about these robots being able to think; it outlined tasks that they could be programmed for. Of course, it defined those programs in 1970s terms -- no provision for program storage and loading -- though it did notably allow multitasking.
Also notable was the "field infantry" program and hardware. Want an antigrav robot built around a modified PGMP-12 and ran a "Ground Combat (infantry)" program?
I suspect the human will be there anyway, for whatever grab-bag of reasons. Hmm, what reasons can I come up with?
(1) Scout transfer. What a rotten way to transfer personnel. Still, there it is.
(2) "Human Backup". Probably more PR than reality.
(3) Experience. Well, why not? Maybe Scouts can gain Astrography experience this way. It's still a horrible assignment.
And as far as gunnery goes, if the ship's sensors can detect and lock onto a target, then the ship's guns can fire on that target. Depends on how proven the technology is IYTU, I think.
The JTAS article I was referring to did not talk about these robots being able to think; it outlined tasks that they could be programmed for. Of course, it defined those programs in 1970s terms -- no provision for program storage and loading -- though it did notably allow multitasking.
Also notable was the "field infantry" program and hardware. Want an antigrav robot built around a modified PGMP-12 and ran a "Ground Combat (infantry)" program?
TheEngineer
October 2nd, 2004, 04:20 PM
Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. Yep. It needs true intelligence to kill each other in a professional way.... smile.gif
I would consider automated starship usage as something very suitable for routine mass transport activities.
However computers/automated starships might be "restricted" by imperial law in its right to defend cargo and perhaps kill people.
Perhaps its too easy to "hack" these system and steal vast amounts of goods. (I just heard about another major security leak in the Windows 6000 Server operating system).
If its getting interpersonal I really could imagine that most people dont want some automatic stuff taking care for them. People like to deal with people. So even passenger transports are not a very good place for full automation.
So fully automated starships might be absolutly possible in the TU, but perhaps just not that practical or accepted.
They are at least a very pretty source of adventure...)
I would consider automated starship usage as something very suitable for routine mass transport activities.
However computers/automated starships might be "restricted" by imperial law in its right to defend cargo and perhaps kill people.
Perhaps its too easy to "hack" these system and steal vast amounts of goods. (I just heard about another major security leak in the Windows 6000 Server operating system).
If its getting interpersonal I really could imagine that most people dont want some automatic stuff taking care for them. People like to deal with people. So even passenger transports are not a very good place for full automation.
So fully automated starships might be absolutly possible in the TU, but perhaps just not that practical or accepted.
They are at least a very pretty source of adventure...)
robject
October 2nd, 2004, 06:32 PM
Seems like it's an open question. That's the kind I like: it allows the referee to decide, and doesn't kill the OTU.
robject
October 2nd, 2004, 07:35 PM
Here's the stats I slopped together for a "crewbot":
Cost: MCr 1.0
Chassis type I (50kg)
Antigrav locomotion
Two light work arms
Voder/Vocoder
Basic physical sensors
Modified SMG
CR-15 Brain (program store = 5)
Assuming programs can be stored in the ship's computer for reprogramming on the fly, this unit can be a pilot, astrogator, medic, steward, gunner, engineer, and general repairdroid. What a guy!
For the nobleman, the following model can also function as a security bot:
Cost: MCr 1.2
Chassis Type III (100kg)
Antigrav locomotion
2 light work arms
Modified Laser Carbine
Modified Auto Grenade L.
Sensor additions:
Night Vision
Low-level audio
Telescopic visual
Comms additions:
MF radio
Counter ECM
Voder/Vocorder
CR-15 Brain (program store = 5)
Cost: MCr 1.0
Chassis type I (50kg)
Antigrav locomotion
Two light work arms
Voder/Vocoder
Basic physical sensors
Modified SMG
CR-15 Brain (program store = 5)
Assuming programs can be stored in the ship's computer for reprogramming on the fly, this unit can be a pilot, astrogator, medic, steward, gunner, engineer, and general repairdroid. What a guy!
For the nobleman, the following model can also function as a security bot:
Cost: MCr 1.2
Chassis Type III (100kg)
Antigrav locomotion
2 light work arms
Modified Laser Carbine
Modified Auto Grenade L.
Sensor additions:
Night Vision
Low-level audio
Telescopic visual
Comms additions:
MF radio
Counter ECM
Voder/Vocorder
CR-15 Brain (program store = 5)
mike wightman
October 2nd, 2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm not even talking about "robots", in the sense of needing humans on board to tell robots what to do.
<snip>
Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. But some things in traveller can certainly be done on automatic. Once you automate the x-boat to the point it can function without a crew member on board then the x-boat is the robot.
If it's controlled by a cmputer "brain" then it is a robot IMHO.
Whether you do this with fixed "brain" with remote appendages or fully mobile individual robots is a moot point - it's still a robotic ship.
As to the usefullness of crew in Traveller combat:
in CT the computer programs had more of a DM on space combat unless you have a skill rating of 4 or higher in a relevant skill;
in HG combat the computer model makes all the difference to the combat charts, crew skill and quality only comes into it for fleet tactics (initiative), ship tactics (bonus to computer model), and pilot (agility) - note that you have to have a skill level of 3 or higher to gain a bonus for the latter two.
I'm not even talking about "robots", in the sense of needing humans on board to tell robots what to do.
<snip>
Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. But some things in traveller can certainly be done on automatic. Once you automate the x-boat to the point it can function without a crew member on board then the x-boat is the robot.
If it's controlled by a cmputer "brain" then it is a robot IMHO.
Whether you do this with fixed "brain" with remote appendages or fully mobile individual robots is a moot point - it's still a robotic ship.
As to the usefullness of crew in Traveller combat:
in CT the computer programs had more of a DM on space combat unless you have a skill rating of 4 or higher in a relevant skill;
in HG combat the computer model makes all the difference to the combat charts, crew skill and quality only comes into it for fleet tactics (initiative), ship tactics (bonus to computer model), and pilot (agility) - note that you have to have a skill level of 3 or higher to gain a bonus for the latter two.
mike wightman
October 3rd, 2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by robject:
Here's the stats I slopped together for a "crewbot":
<snip> Works for me smile.gif
If you have book 8 you can make pretty much the same robots - they may work out a little more expensive than the JTAS article designs IIRC.
The advantage of book 8 is that it includes rules for skills, program storage etc.
Here's the stats I slopped together for a "crewbot":
<snip> Works for me smile.gif
If you have book 8 you can make pretty much the same robots - they may work out a little more expensive than the JTAS article designs IIRC.
The advantage of book 8 is that it includes rules for skills, program storage etc.
Border Reiver
October 7th, 2004, 07:55 PM
I think most crew positions can be deemed necessary only to make humans feel better about themselves in the same way the US has a manned spaceflight programme when most work can be completed by unmanned vehicles. Anyway we already have canon fully automated starships, many (but not all) Vampire vessels in the new era are crewless.
mike wightman
October 7th, 2004, 08:07 PM
And the ones that are crewed are full of zombie cyborgs and killer robots :eek:
There's so much to love about the TNE setting... ;) graemlins/file_23.gif
There's so much to love about the TNE setting... ;) graemlins/file_23.gif
Golan2072
November 15th, 2004, 07:07 AM
It's only a matter of flavor. Do you want a HAL-2001 on your TU's ships? a "Mother" (from Alien)? A S.H.O.D.A.N? Or just a simple R2D2? Or no robot at all?
I might design my own TL-12 "Mother" computer - not really sentient, and not creative - so you'll need a Human to make most important decisions, but day-to-day operations would be handled by Mother, or by her slaved robots.
Now, if a good "programmer" (read, Hacker) gets inside this "Mother" and modifies stuff, or if something infests her - you'll get an instant System Shock plot device; a similar late TL-15 system could fully "go SHODAN".
And i wonder how much Ash would cost in Traveller terms graemlins/file_23.gif
I might design my own TL-12 "Mother" computer - not really sentient, and not creative - so you'll need a Human to make most important decisions, but day-to-day operations would be handled by Mother, or by her slaved robots.
Now, if a good "programmer" (read, Hacker) gets inside this "Mother" and modifies stuff, or if something infests her - you'll get an instant System Shock plot device; a similar late TL-15 system could fully "go SHODAN".
And i wonder how much Ash would cost in Traveller terms graemlins/file_23.gif
mike wightman
November 15th, 2004, 01:47 PM
Most of these already exist somewhere in Traveller canon ;)
HAL - the Kinunir's computer;
R2D2 - the janitor robots from Adventure 2 Research Station Gamma.
The K'kree use master/slave engineering robots to save having to crawl around in the cramped engineering sections of their ships.
What's a SHODAN?
Oh, and Ash would cost about 12MCr according to LBB8 ;)
HAL - the Kinunir's computer;
R2D2 - the janitor robots from Adventure 2 Research Station Gamma.
The K'kree use master/slave engineering robots to save having to crawl around in the cramped engineering sections of their ships.
What's a SHODAN?
Oh, and Ash would cost about 12MCr according to LBB8 ;)
Golan2072
November 17th, 2004, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
What's a SHODAN?
S.H.O.D.A.N = Sentient, Hyper-Optimized, Data Access Network; the Goddess-like AI villian from the System Shock computer game series. Think of VIKI from "I, Robot" mixed with HAL2001 and given total, unrestricted control of a bio/robotics reseach space station. Use these links to see Her face (http://www.sshock2.com/ss2mmdb/artwork/shodan_new.html), learn about the game (http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?gameid=1114), or about Her realm. (http://www.ttlg.com/ss1/citadel/html/menu.html)
What's a SHODAN?
S.H.O.D.A.N = Sentient, Hyper-Optimized, Data Access Network; the Goddess-like AI villian from the System Shock computer game series. Think of VIKI from "I, Robot" mixed with HAL2001 and given total, unrestricted control of a bio/robotics reseach space station. Use these links to see Her face (http://www.sshock2.com/ss2mmdb/artwork/shodan_new.html), learn about the game (http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?gameid=1114), or about Her realm. (http://www.ttlg.com/ss1/citadel/html/menu.html)
aramis
November 17th, 2004, 09:35 PM
There are several reasons why there are 1-2 scouts aboard the X-Boats.
1) someone to blame when things go wrong.
2) someone to be the legal claim that it's not abandoned.
3) someone to wield the shotgun if the ship gets hijacked.
4) someone to keep the occasional passenger out of the computers.
I think it is clearly doable to automate all the crew positions. Remember, a crewman's work week is defined (in TNE, at least) as 40 hours... a single "Always up" robot can replace 3.9-4 crewmen AT A SINGLE STATION... But it requires a mobile maintenance program, too...
I think, due to various bits of Library data, that such automation is NOT considered reliable, even if it is, for societal reasons.
Likewise, I would NOT want to trust a fully automated ship with my life, no matter HOW much I was assured it was safer. Put a pilot with manual override capability, and I'll fell a lot safer. (Odds are, i'm no safer... unless there is a maintenance issue.)
1) someone to blame when things go wrong.
2) someone to be the legal claim that it's not abandoned.
3) someone to wield the shotgun if the ship gets hijacked.
4) someone to keep the occasional passenger out of the computers.
I think it is clearly doable to automate all the crew positions. Remember, a crewman's work week is defined (in TNE, at least) as 40 hours... a single "Always up" robot can replace 3.9-4 crewmen AT A SINGLE STATION... But it requires a mobile maintenance program, too...
I think, due to various bits of Library data, that such automation is NOT considered reliable, even if it is, for societal reasons.
Likewise, I would NOT want to trust a fully automated ship with my life, no matter HOW much I was assured it was safer. Put a pilot with manual override capability, and I'll fell a lot safer. (Odds are, i'm no safer... unless there is a maintenance issue.)
BetterThanLife
November 18th, 2004, 12:02 AM
I like the implication about astrogation in Jump Space that, for best results requires a Human. (Like Slip Streaming on the TV show Andromeda requires an organic brain and intuition. (Amazing the amount of Traveller parallels in that show. Almost like it was inspired by TNE. smile.gif )
jatay3
December 7th, 2004, 05:41 PM
A. maned ships are necessary to the story. What kind of story would their be if the characters don't do anything?
B. All that really needs to be done is to blame it on some phenomenon(real,fictional, or undetermined) we don't understand. That way no one can say the explanation is improbable. For instance just say that the strains of jump space make it impossible to depend completly on computers. As no one knows how jump works anyway no one can argue against it.
B. All that really needs to be done is to blame it on some phenomenon(real,fictional, or undetermined) we don't understand. That way no one can say the explanation is improbable. For instance just say that the strains of jump space make it impossible to depend completly on computers. As no one knows how jump works anyway no one can argue against it.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét