Yeah, no, I mean in larger ships too - not to cut other roles 100% to virtual crewmen. Keep some gunners and such.
Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Art Quest Sci-Fi
- Location
- USA
I'm not sure that's clear with how you wrote it. You need to make more clear whether you're talking about hangar bay and flights, general jobs, both, and things like maintenance of martial tradition and skill and means of evolving best practices and the like more specifically. My write in was only about smallcraft operations.
Yeah, I just copied that part from original "[ ] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in every position" option.
Expanded now my write-in to be more clear about what it should aim for.
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
I am against going too hard on virtual crew; the veteran / skill bonus isn't necessarily a small thing (and the last thing we want is to make our officers and crew redundant, after all). Yeah, we eat tonnage on accommodations but... that's what we need to maintain our defensive edge.
Also against replacing FLF contingents. I like our jarheads.
Also against replacing FLF contingents. I like our jarheads.
How does having virtual crew that support our actual crew make the Navy as an institution less indespensable?
I agree in most cases for our standard warships, which we can afford to make larger, don't have the issues of things like extreme thrust, & require a lot of flexibility in their role.
The monitor, however, has a bunch of complications. First off, they need to be cheap and small enough that we can spam them out wherever we want a defensive minefield. Also, these are going to be isolated from HSWS fleet bases, so every person we have aboard needs to be rotated back to Home once every ~4 months or we risk things like mutinies, meaning we not only need to consider the tonnage on accomodations but also the cost of the berth each crewmember will take up when they do their rotation.
Meanwhile, we're tonnage-limited here, so we have to ask if adding dedicated gunners for the point defence is worth reducing the number of point defence turrets (or something else), or if having 1 additional human sensor operator is worth ~4 virtual sensops. I think the "big" weapons should have humans controlling them, and there should be at least 1 on-shift sensop at any given time, but for some of the more mundane tasks, quantity > quality.
Similarly, for our strike craft, I want them to be able to do at least a full round (6 minutes) at max burner, and I want that to be the full 15 gs. Even if the pilot successfully passes the G-LOC check at 6 gs (9 g reaction drive, -2 for a suit, -1 for drugs), they're operating at -2 skill, which puts them roughly on par with a virtual pilot after the first minute. However, they'd have to roll >9 on 2d6 six times in a row if they don't want to black out, which I think is unlikely.
I also don't think it's a huge deal if the admin people on a monitor like this are replaced by spreadsheets overseen by one of the officers.
On our cruisers, yeah, but do we really need marines colocated with our minefields? Is it really that likely that what amounts to a static coastal fort will be conducting a boarding action that we are willing to double the required tonnage for crew in order to handle it?
Last edited:
"We don't need those pesky Vice-Marshalls, Captains and Petty Officers IIIrd Class themselves. Our corporations can build ships, they can be commanded by some reliable guys we trust, and the other ship jobs, including flying, aiming and firing could be done by programs"
Okay but that's already the case? If they wanted to do that, they could do that right now. As you say, they can choose to pick some reliable people they trust and train them to shoot a gun.
It's a matter of a perceived complexity. Our initial Patrol Carrier required 194 crew to run it. This means that you need 194 people if vastly different professions, everyone well-trained and pre-selected for aptitudes, and these people are led by competent officers because of course you need even more well-trained officers to manage all these people and to understand the ship systems and so on.
So you feel that a lot of people are required to work together to run a single ship. A complicated sphere of expertise.
Conversely, the new Patrol carrier has crew of 111. And 86 of them are fighter pilots and FLF marines. Cutting them out makes the ship being run by 25 persons - not considering any deeper doctrinal changes that would maybe make even less crew possible.
25 is already a dangerously low number - and much worse if it could be cut down to a lower one.
Why? Because then from "a very complicated system that you need 100-200 indispensable, institutionally-trained people to run" you get to "I can put my nephew in charge, the ship basically runs itself!". 25-person crew is still somewhat large for a completely random nephew - but maybe doable. And smaller than that - well, more doable.
The less people you need the more it automated, then the easier the job looks like. And if it looks like easy enough, then someone could get the idea that anyone could do it. And therefore you do not need to tolerate HSWS having a high opinion about themselves, you don't really need to negotiate with them or to consider them in any real way. You can always fire the crew and put a Berty Wooster at the helm.
---
Corporations probably would try building their own warships at some point anyways. And the later that happens - the later people would stop feeling that HSWS has the monopoly on the space warfare and security, the better for HSWS.
That still doesn't prevent the corporations from trying it regardless of what we do, and then we have a corporate carrier whose fighters are too fast for us to intercept because humans are squishy and don't like being thrown around at multiple times Earth gravity, regardless of how many drugs we pump into them. The only way around that is if you think we should completely stop all use of unmanned spacecraft, but that's putting us at a serious disadvantage in general and will cost us so much.
If you want to cut out the corporations, we should focus on our logistical advantage. We're the only ones with the space stations and the convoy routes, and if we double down on that and establish a monopoly on jump travel, then we can keep the corporations stuck on a planet while we control space.
The "corporations eventually build their own ships" and "Citizen Council gets the idea that HSWS in general could be disbanded and replaced by loyalists and that would be easy-peasy" are two pretty different scenarios. First one is largely inevitable, but would probably happen later rather than sooner.
And I do not understand why keeping both drones and human-piloted craft (and core sensor/gunnery/whatnot crew) is impossible and it's either "all drones" and "no drones at all"
I don't think it'd be "easy peasy" regardless, tbh; the HSWS is more than just its individual pilots.
I don't think it's either or as well. I suggested partially crewed monitors and that strike craft should be uncrewed so that they can go so fast that PD and enemy fighters struggles to hit them (which is achievable with a combined M-6 and R-9 drive, as far as I can tell). However, generally speaking we do need to ask if cutting a crewmember in a specific scenario is worth it; as we strech further and further from Home and build better-protected and more elaborate spacecraft, the tonnage "cost" of a crewmember rises steeply. For example, if we're operating a non-jump-capable spacecraft three parsecs out from our nearest base of operations, then a virtual sensor operator (on top of the "regular" 3 per 7500 tons we normally have) requires 4 tons for the sensor console, plus the fuel and drives to move it around and armour to protect it; a person, meanwhile, requires 4 tons for the sensor console, plus 4 tons for the habitation space aboard the ship, plus approx. 2 tons of common areas, plus a half ton for the biosphere, plus a half ton for the escape pods (and optionally low berths as well for emergencies where they can't use the escape pods), plus the powerplant for the habitation stuff, plus all that tonnage again for the facilities aboard the replenishment ship that handles crew rotations, and then the fuel, drives, and armour needed for all that. We're looking at one +1/+2/+3 sensor operator, probably, or four virtual sensor operators who are less likely to individually succeed at jamming enemy sensors/decoying missiles/getting a target lock but who can do multiple of those at once, unlike the single human sensor operator. Prior to combat, when the primary task is "try and locate ships", it's good to have a person that can roll as high as possible, but once combat starts the number of tasks increases a lot and we can either have a LOT of redundant crew, use virtual crew, or accept that some of those tasks aren't getting done.
Last edited:
I dunno about mixing piloted fighters in, but I think human tenders or support assets is useful.
For example, if we're sending a couple squadrons of long-endurance drones out to guard something or on a long-range strike it makes sense to have some sort of AWACS shuttles along to actually control them, spot targets, counter enemy jamming etc.
But is that useful, mechanically? In comparison to scout drones or EWAR drones or smth.
With our current fighters, I think the main reasons for having EWAR squadrons are A: that these are single-seat light fighters and just flying and shooting is a full-time job, the strike crews have no time to do EWAR and putting a backseater RIO in a ten-tonne fighter is a recipe for mass casualties, and B: at the time we needed heavy dedicated electronics to get good sensor and EWAR performance and it would compromise performance on a do-everything ship even more.
Do these conditions still hold?
Equally, if we do go to a mix of drone and piloted fighters, would we want the current sort or would we want a mix of light torpedo and missile drones and heavier piloted defensive fighters, or something else?
For the marines... isn't an isolated border fort like this exactly the kind of place you do want marines? Inspecting transiting traffic, performing search and rescue operations, defending against assaults when there's no chance of outside aid? A ship on the edge of a fleet just needs to hold out until the flagship can send over a shuttle full of crayon-eaters, but static defences can really only buy time and if they're already clamped to your hull it's too late for clever tricks.
Unless this is a weird mechanics thing?
And can we not have both defences and marines? Aren't these another of the things like radiation shielding that just cost money?
Edit: a couple other things on fighters: piloted fighters also mean both casualties and needing to do search and rescue, so part of why I mentioned piloted fighters being heavy and defensive is that if people only fly in a frontline role in defensive missions it's a lot easier to pick them up when they go down, versus a strike pilot who would be ejecting near an enemy ship, but the main reason is that I'm still unsure how survivable they are and light fighters seem very suicide-sleddy.
For example, if we're sending a couple squadrons of long-endurance drones out to guard something or on a long-range strike it makes sense to have some sort of AWACS shuttles along to actually control them, spot targets, counter enemy jamming etc.
But is that useful, mechanically? In comparison to scout drones or EWAR drones or smth.
With our current fighters, I think the main reasons for having EWAR squadrons are A: that these are single-seat light fighters and just flying and shooting is a full-time job, the strike crews have no time to do EWAR and putting a backseater RIO in a ten-tonne fighter is a recipe for mass casualties, and B: at the time we needed heavy dedicated electronics to get good sensor and EWAR performance and it would compromise performance on a do-everything ship even more.
Do these conditions still hold?
Equally, if we do go to a mix of drone and piloted fighters, would we want the current sort or would we want a mix of light torpedo and missile drones and heavier piloted defensive fighters, or something else?
For the marines... isn't an isolated border fort like this exactly the kind of place you do want marines? Inspecting transiting traffic, performing search and rescue operations, defending against assaults when there's no chance of outside aid? A ship on the edge of a fleet just needs to hold out until the flagship can send over a shuttle full of crayon-eaters, but static defences can really only buy time and if they're already clamped to your hull it's too late for clever tricks.
Unless this is a weird mechanics thing?
And can we not have both defences and marines? Aren't these another of the things like radiation shielding that just cost money?
Edit: a couple other things on fighters: piloted fighters also mean both casualties and needing to do search and rescue, so part of why I mentioned piloted fighters being heavy and defensive is that if people only fly in a frontline role in defensive missions it's a lot easier to pick them up when they go down, versus a strike pilot who would be ejecting near an enemy ship, but the main reason is that I'm still unsure how survivable they are and light fighters seem very suicide-sleddy.
Last edited:
Yeah, it still makes sense to have an EWAR squadron lurking a bit further back. I'm specifically talking about stuff that needs to penetrate the PD/fighter screen, where it's possible to move faster than the defenders and thus slip by them.
That said, I've realized that I misunderstood Traveller's arcane rules - Evade software is just a flat -1, not -1 per thrust (unlike pilot skill, which is -1 per thrust). As such, I am now firmly in the "put pilots in the strike craft (for now)" camp. There isn't an advantage to pulling 15 gs with virtual crew/0; as soon as we get virtual crew/1, though, it's highly advantageous.
We can and should combine both FLF and doors that kill you if you have bad vibes.
I guess it comes down to what we see this monitor doing. Is it a minimum-cost installation whose primary job is to queue up attacks by the torpedo minefield (with boarding and SAR handled by whatever's being defended, if there's sufficient traffic to it), or is it also intended to do customs inspections of spacecraft passing through the minefield? I was going for a more minimal station because I felt we probably don't need to inspect, for example, unidentified ships approaching a mining station around a rock in the middle of nowhere; we ask them to tell us who they are, and then politely ask them to leave.
That said, if we want to go with something larger, we can do that, but we should be aware that it'll increase tonnage a LOT and we won't be able to build as many of these.
- Location
- Earth, Milky Way
I think we should continuously experiment with drones and we shouldn't pick a policy so early. If we find ourselves producing more ships than we can staff, we should increase automation. If new automation technology comes out, we should experiment and see if we should increase automation.
Which is to say I think we should pay a small continuous cost to keep some flexibility.
But I don't think we should overindex on this. The hard part of running a navy is not gunnery skills, it's high level leadership. The grunts are literally designed to be replaceable cogs: they're produced at industrial scale. As long as we control the pilots and other high level positions I think we will be okay.
Which is to say I think we should pay a small continuous cost to keep some flexibility.
I wonder if this is because they want a measure of control in case of a civil war (i.e. out of fear that the HSWS may seize control).
This is a very interesting point I did not consider. It rankles to be making a decision like keeping (potentially) inefficient humans in the loop because of politics.
But I don't think we should overindex on this. The hard part of running a navy is not gunnery skills, it's high level leadership. The grunts are literally designed to be replaceable cogs: they're produced at industrial scale. As long as we control the pilots and other high level positions I think we will be okay.
Why is this a given? I guess because we're a plutocracy and the rulers all want their personal navies? I think we should oppose this if at all possible, even if we have to use the MIC or deniable foreign mercenaries. I don't want anyone challenging our monopoly on space violence within Home. But I'm a late joiner in this quest so maybe corporate navies are inevitable.
Last edited:
There's been a lot of discussion on automation and politics, and I'm honestly still undecided on that issue. So instead I'll offer a few thoughts on the Aslan duel.
The Aslan are, well, Space!Lions. They're naturally better equipped than humans for physical combat, and they put more time into training for it. So single combat is out. A major fleet engagement seems like it could damage a lot of our ships. So I think field competitions and an orbital engagement are our best options.
The Aslan are, well, Space!Lions. They're naturally better equipped than humans for physical combat, and they put more time into training for it. So single combat is out. A major fleet engagement seems like it could damage a lot of our ships. So I think field competitions and an orbital engagement are our best options.
Last edited:
Okay, here's three plan variants, updated in light of me realizing that uncrewed fighters don't work as well as I thought.
[] Plan: temp name - marines on big ships only
-[] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as on internal bulkhead hatches, and elimiate the FLF deployment on ships below 3,000 tons.
-[] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
[] Plan: temp name - squad-level tactics
-[] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as on internal bulkhead hatches, and reconsider the minimum viable FLF deployment, entrusting the defence of smaller ships to the command of a non-commissioned officer.
-[] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
[] Plan: temp name - lots of marines
-[] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as on internal bulkhead hatches, and maintain the minimum platoon on anything over a certain size.
-[] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
[] Plan: temp name - marines on big ships only
-[] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as on internal bulkhead hatches, and elimiate the FLF deployment on ships below 3,000 tons.
-[] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
[] Plan: temp name - squad-level tactics
-[] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as on internal bulkhead hatches, and reconsider the minimum viable FLF deployment, entrusting the defence of smaller ships to the command of a non-commissioned officer.
-[] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
[] Plan: temp name - lots of marines
-[] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in most positions aboard combat craft.
-[] We should equip all our ships with defences such as these, as well as on internal bulkhead hatches, and maintain the minimum platoon on anything over a certain size.
-[] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
Single combat is not necessarily out. We do have at least some Homegrown lions in the military right now.
One issue with space combat is that I think the Aslan like fighters to maximise individual glory, but fighters are unlikely to survive contact with point defence so even a first-blood battle is likely to fill a bunch of coffins. Presumably they're okay with that, at least if they don't bid away their squadrons. Or maybe they use simunitions against fighters? Idk. Though I guess even a whole squadron being wiped out is still less casualties than you'd get from an MDC slug going internal on a big ship.
I think the Aslan use a sort of Battlestar setup? Cruisers carrying escort fighters rather than a dedicated carrier.
Might be worth a note to specify that the ships/crews for this should be volunteers? Idk. Guess the flower wars thing doesn't vibe with me. Though it will give us experience in carrier combat.
Actually, can missiles be used in a dogfight? Because if they can't our wings might be in trouble.
Could we do a lower-stakes challenge for specific items of tech? Say, specifically Mass Driver Cannons?
Can we make infantry-scale combat drones?
Legitimisation of private armies and warmaking was one of my original complaints about letting the Aslan merc companies move in. Idk if that's happened or is a problem but we do already have the thin end of the wedge in place.
IIRC the "default" for canon Traveler is ships of sub 500t armed only with turreted weapons, where nuclear warheads and barbette or bay weapons being restricted military tech. Under that paradigm even an escort frigate would eat private contractors for breakfast, but apparently there's something fucky about our weapon laws?
One issue with space combat is that I think the Aslan like fighters to maximise individual glory, but fighters are unlikely to survive contact with point defence so even a first-blood battle is likely to fill a bunch of coffins. Presumably they're okay with that, at least if they don't bid away their squadrons. Or maybe they use simunitions against fighters? Idk. Though I guess even a whole squadron being wiped out is still less casualties than you'd get from an MDC slug going internal on a big ship.
I think the Aslan use a sort of Battlestar setup? Cruisers carrying escort fighters rather than a dedicated carrier.
Might be worth a note to specify that the ships/crews for this should be volunteers? Idk. Guess the flower wars thing doesn't vibe with me. Though it will give us experience in carrier combat.
Actually, can missiles be used in a dogfight? Because if they can't our wings might be in trouble.
Could we do a lower-stakes challenge for specific items of tech? Say, specifically Mass Driver Cannons?
Can we make infantry-scale combat drones?
Legitimisation of private armies and warmaking was one of my original complaints about letting the Aslan merc companies move in. Idk if that's happened or is a problem but we do already have the thin end of the wedge in place.
IIRC the "default" for canon Traveler is ships of sub 500t armed only with turreted weapons, where nuclear warheads and barbette or bay weapons being restricted military tech. Under that paradigm even an escort frigate would eat private contractors for breakfast, but apparently there's something fucky about our weapon laws?
Last edited:
We could do a sort of "top gun" thing where if you have a firing solution on a fighter, that counts as a hit, and the fighter now has to play dead, and that missiles are fired with training warheads only (and if they get close enough to set off the warhead, that's logged as a hit)?
- Location
- Earth, Milky Way
[] Plan: Semi-Automation
- [] Write-in: We should experiment with augmenting our strike craft pilots with "loyal wingmen" (drones that autonomously assist our highly trained pilots)
- [] We should maintain the minimum platoon on anything over a certain size.
- [] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
In the initial stages automation should be incremental and augment rather than replace existing systems. We should experiment with mixing-in drones that sacrifice themselves to take hits to keep our pilots alive, or that increase the striking power of our veteran pilots by carrying weapons systems, or that deploy automated sensor/EWAR suites.
In the case of a long war where training pipelines may become a bottleneck, this would let us more smoothly transition to extensive use of AI.
As to troop contingents: the Traveller rules make boarding seem very easy and effective. If this is approximately how it works in this quest, we shouldn't cut down per-ship troop deployments:
If boarding is more "realistic" (i.e., boarding craft has to brave a nightmare zone of incoming fire then match velocities or somehow clamp on, and then the boarders have to be ready to operate in a vented environment and get annihilated by shrapnel mines in every corridor) then I think boarding isn't a real risk during fleet actions. In this case we can afford to reduce troop allocations substantially.
I would appreciate some clarity on the HSWS's consensus on the effectiveness of boarding during combat, or if it's mostly something to be done after the space combat has concluded.
As to how to challenge the Aslan, I'm ambivalent here and happy to change to whatever the people want. I'm a little worried that since we've never had a real war we're very casualty averse and thus our internal enemies could make us tarnish us for making our spacers die in "games". But we seem to have nearly zero internal opposition in this quest, so I'm alright with a large fleet battle where we mostly simulate damage and don't risk more than a few dozen (volunteer) deaths.
- [] Write-in: We should experiment with augmenting our strike craft pilots with "loyal wingmen" (drones that autonomously assist our highly trained pilots)
- [] We should maintain the minimum platoon on anything over a certain size.
- [] Write-in: an engagement between single carriers with a handful of cruisers as screens on both sides
In the initial stages automation should be incremental and augment rather than replace existing systems. We should experiment with mixing-in drones that sacrifice themselves to take hits to keep our pilots alive, or that increase the striking power of our veteran pilots by carrying weapons systems, or that deploy automated sensor/EWAR suites.
In the case of a long war where training pipelines may become a bottleneck, this would let us more smoothly transition to extensive use of AI.
As to troop contingents: the Traveller rules make boarding seem very easy and effective. If this is approximately how it works in this quest, we shouldn't cut down per-ship troop deployments:
Article: Dock with another vessel: The pilot must make a successful Pilot check. If the other ship does not wish to be docked with then make opposed Pilot checks; the ship trying to dock suffers a -2 DM. When docked, boarding actions can take place.
...
If the ships are docked, then the attackers may cross over safely via airlocks. If the ships are merely adjacent, then the attackers must use thruster packs or small craft to cross over. While crossing, the attackers may be attacked with point defence weapons or by firing sand.
If boarding is more "realistic" (i.e., boarding craft has to brave a nightmare zone of incoming fire then match velocities or somehow clamp on, and then the boarders have to be ready to operate in a vented environment and get annihilated by shrapnel mines in every corridor) then I think boarding isn't a real risk during fleet actions. In this case we can afford to reduce troop allocations substantially.
I would appreciate some clarity on the HSWS's consensus on the effectiveness of boarding during combat, or if it's mostly something to be done after the space combat has concluded.
As to how to challenge the Aslan, I'm ambivalent here and happy to change to whatever the people want. I'm a little worried that since we've never had a real war we're very casualty averse and thus our internal enemies could make us tarnish us for making our spacers die in "games". But we seem to have nearly zero internal opposition in this quest, so I'm alright with a large fleet battle where we mostly simulate damage and don't risk more than a few dozen (volunteer) deaths.
Last edited:
Oh I don't think that would be "easy peasy" too. But the Council could perceive it like that.
Generally because there are no laws restricting weapon ownership on Home, so hypothetically someone could posess a private warship (or private nukes). So it's possible, and we probably would not be doing everything every single corporation would desire - which may push someone rich enough to build themselves warship(s).
I too think that this would not be good for us and that we should oppose this once it come (or ideally try and prevent this), but this is a pretty real posibility in our political system.
Well, yes, but they are "produced" by HSWS as institution and intend to work as a part of HSWS as institution - they are educated in HSWS academies and serve in the fleet where they function as parts of the naval unit. And they are imparted with HSWS values, whatever we would make them.
Conversely, virtual crew is part of the ship in physical sense. They are produced by shipyards (and corporation can have a shipyard and produce them for example. Or they are trasnferable part of the ship - like ship can be donated/bought along with the virtual crew).
So virtual crew are not really affected by HSWS traditions/values/ideas. Not only they don't have agency - virtual crew is entirely alienable from HSWS (while our Human/Aslan aren't).
It's probably less depends on size and more on the role - we can eliminate (or in some edge cases, minimize?) the FLF complement on the ships that should not expect direct combat - like "mine-herding monitors".
(because if we would design 500/1000/2000 ton ship that would be a part of our combat squadrons, then they should carry marines probably).
Last edited:
I picked size because that's what the voting options given by default suggested, but I agree it's more to do with role.
I guess we need to answer what the role of the FLF is - are they aboard a spacecraft to defend against enemy boarders, or are they aboard a spacecraft to board other vessels? If the former, is that something that we need to realistically be concerned about in combat conditions (as opposed to a civilian station boarded by a numerically superior enemy who got aboard under the guise of needing aid)? If the latter, is this spacecraft one that will need to board other vessels?
For the purposes of fleet combat, it's average skill/2 rounded up. If we're averaging (0,2], then it all counts as "1".
I think.
There's like four different rules for this.
- Location
- Earth, Milky Way
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.