Just to be 100% crystal: A virtual crew member or gunner is not an AI. It has no intelligence or ability to learn. It is a program that responds to certain inputs by completing pre-programmed tasks.
Now, the schema of things it can respond to is massive - but it's as 'smart' as chat gpt is.
Just to be 100% crystal: A virtual crew member or gunner is not an AI. It has no intelligence or ability to learn. It is a program that responds to certain inputs by completing pre-programmed tasks.
Now, the schema of things it can respond to is massive - but it's as 'smart' as chat gpt is.
So that's part of why you need people doing the normal job next to them (at least some of the time, and some of the time wrangling the automated system), to handle exceptions, process improvement, suggestions, updates, to make the system behave, to figure out what it's bad at, to find where the station itself can have core tasks improved not just automated, so we can eventually get smarter AI systems...
~8 tons extra per crew member compared to virtual crew seems pretty cheap, given the size of our ships and the extra skill and flexibility that trained crew offer in adverse circumstances.
People are also wildly multi-role. If they are empowered to participate in decision making and the organisation and activities of the ship them each crew member is also bringing their experience and skills in everything else they know. These could be skills that are really useful in first-contact or in developing refinements of our equipment or doctrine, or in keeping morale and ethics up for the whole organisation.
I'm concerned that if our fleet switches to very low crew requirements then our spacers could become quite lonely and even more isolated from the communities that the organisation is supposed to belong to.
Yeah, I'm against automating our combat roles beyond what's useful. We're investing a lot of money into our officer and crew academies let's make sure we benefit from them.
[X] Plan: Security Checkpoints
-[X] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[X] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as placing similarly-equipped airlocks at bulkhead penetrations, and reconsider the minimum viable FLF deployment, entrusting the defence of smaller ships to the command of a non-commissioned officer.
-[X] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides.
Aannnnd a plan that sets us up for more automation down the line? Especially as automation can hopefully improve our construction capacity so that training crew becomes an actual constraint, and also, as tech improves, lets some of our space vessels usefully do the crazy things you can get away with without humans onboard? And allows for more attritable forces?
Aannnnd a plan that sets us up for more automation down the line? Especially as automation can hopefully improve our construction capacity so that training crew becomes an actual constraint, and also, as tech improves, lets some of our space vessels usefully do the crazy things you can get away with without humans onboard? And allows for more attritable forces?
Virtual Crew/1 is TL12, and I figure we can revisit this at that point (because that's when the 15 g supermaneuverable unmanned stealth strike fighter makes sense).
I'm willing to accept the "we need PD gunners", even if it's mechanically suboptimal, because once we get to TL10 with weapons we can have PD batteries which are vastly more crew-efficient anyways; an inefficiency for the short period before we get that is no big deal. I also specified combat craft because if people insist on making our fuel tankers, mineral refineries, and minelayers crewed, then we're just redoing the particle beam debacle and there's no hope for the HSWS.
It actually makes sense to virtually crew PD batteries since I don't think crew skill actually impacts their barrage defense; they're just flat +4 / + 8 / + 12 per battery, where-as the regular turrets start at base with the crew skill +y and then a flat +1 for double and +2 for triple turrets.
[X] Plan: Security Checkpoints
I'm OK with dropping the platoon down to a security squad with a WO or NCO or something for stuff below 3000 tons, but I think combat craft above that should have that full platoon for boarding/counter-boarding and larger defensive stations should also include a decent marine contingent.
We are of course not reducing the marine contingents of larger ships, and the security measurements are definitely not a prelude to that. The FLF can rest easy!
I'm only just catching up with the quest, but I've seen C_Z building the spreadsheets and from my current understanding the rules really do make tonnages balloon due to crew requirements.
At the end of the day you have to do the math between having one ship with... potentially better bonuses, or two ships that are 'merely' average.
I strongly suspect that the two ships will be more impactful both in combat and in peacetime when taken in aggregate.
Automation lets us build more cheaper ships while also letting us crew all those ships with existing manpower pools, or possibly become even more rigorous with selection and training criteria. The latter should do a good job of keeping out failsons.
Well, the full quote is "they fail in tests against veteran crews and those that have come from the newer academies established by the HSWS"
Which is to say they're comparable to a rookie from the old academy. And I assume AI's can and will improve (unless the setting prohibits this). Personally, I just don't think we have enough information to make a good decision.
To be explicit about something that was said but not in direct response to this, the skill level of virtual crew is locked to Tech Level and does increase over time, but TL gains are difficult.
Personally I think virtual crew do make sense in certain circumstances but right now with our limitations on pilots quality is in fact more important than quantity when we have a hard limit on numbers.
Adhoc vote count started by 4WheelSword on Nov 2, 2024 at 8:31 AM, finished with 51 posts and 10 votes.
[X] Plan: Security Checkpoints
-[X] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[X] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as placing similarly-equipped airlocks at bulkhead penetrations, and reconsider the minimum viable FLF deployment, entrusting the defence of smaller ships to the command of a non-commissioned officer.
-[X] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides.
What is the broader HSWS position on strike craft: They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft. What is the broader HSWS position on infantry: We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as placing similarly-equipped airlocks at bulkhead penetrations, and reconsider the minimum viable FLF deployment, entrusting the defence of smaller ships to the command of a non-commissioned officer. What is the HSWS willing to bid? None of these will be to the death: Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides.
Available Budget: 1236.65MCr Current Dockyard Usage: 19,700/21,500Dtons + 7,400Dtons in civilian yards Current Pilot Usage: 85/100
Population growth and national development
The office of accountancy and growth has tracked the growth in populations (of all kinds) across the three systems that Home is now responsible for, and is pleased to report the following findings:
- Thirty million individuals were captured in the latest census, from newborn babies to those approaching their last days. This is up from a previous count of ~25 million, showing a steady 2.5% increase year-on-year over the last decade.
- Based on this growth, the allocation of funds to the HSWS will grow from around six billion credits per annum to closer to seven billion. This will be backdated to the start of this year, allowing for the purchase of additional ships. This is especially important given the following point:
- Growth in industry at Home and abroad will allow for the simultaneous construction of 27,400Dtons, with any single module not exceeding 14,000Dtons. This will also impact the development of civilian yards, though at a slower rate.
Assessments will continue over the coming decades and, as long as there is no negative growth affecting Home or her constituent systems, it can be expected that growth will continue dramatically.
Available Budget: 2236.65MCr Current Dockyard Usage: 16,500/27,400Dtons + 7,400Dtons in civilian yards Current Pilot Usage: 75/102
Based on this (and the update to the list of active service ships/reserve ships found here), the following must be asked? With these developments, please select additional construction:
[ ] An additional System Defence Monitor (572.725Mcr.)
[ ] An additional CFA-A flt III (1753.525Mcr.)
[ ] An additional CFA-B flt III (1683.525Mcr.)
[ ] Something Else Entirely
Note that the SDM has been updated based on developments in doctrinal choices:
Aslan Negotiations
The Aslan Technocrate agrees to the ceremonial war, in principle, based on the following assumptions:
Force: Tonnage equivalent to a HSWS carrier strike package.
Rules: EMP and Decoy weapons will be paired with low-power lasers and other weapons to simulate fires and damage.
Victory Conditions: Disable, 'Destroy' or force to retreat all opponent vessels within a 24-hour combat window.
-In the event of the HSWS achieving victory in the above engagement, the Aslan Technocrate will transfer all available weapons technology to the HSWS.
-In the event of an Aslan victory in the above engagement, the HSWS and Home will cede significant land on Home, Cassalon and Xyri to the Aslan Technocrate, remove all tariffs affecting Aslan trade ships and will sign a defence treaty pledging the HSWS to supporting the Technocrate should it be attacked.
Does the HSWS accept these terms?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
Please present votes as plans. Voting closes at
Sorry for the odd little update, I'm tired as FUCK today, and needed to do some quest admin.
[] No, and point out that they already offered a defence treaty and 10% of our budget for the tech; that should be what's on the table. If they refuse, walk away and see if one of the other polities is willing to sell us production mass driver cannons and PD batteries.
@4WheelSword, can we retroactively make the monitor 2000.1 tons? That way it won't take as much damage from fighter weapons since it's above the threshold.
Personally I think we should wait before laying anything else down. If this deal goes through, we could build a large cruiser later in the year with LMDC turrets.
Edit; take that back, we should build another 3000 ton logistics station component.
