-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Heavier, especially per person. Shielding and lifesupport are needed, and maintenance, supplies etc would have to be several times greater and more varied than on a naval ship.
I think 17ktons for 90m is reasonable enough, if a little high. Lets assume the ships is 20m wide and 20m high, so our volume is approximately 36000m3, which well round to 30000m3 to account for gaps etc. That gives a density of around 560kg/m3, which is higher than most scifi startship density estimates, which generally range in the 100-400kg/m3 range. It isnt particularly out of order though. Maybe 10ktons would be closer to the mark. This would place a DN at around 200ktons, and an LV at 3000ktons (not quite 20x, since the length to area ratio increases for the larger ships).
A 90m wet navy ship will typically only weigh a couple of thousand tons, for example the Russian Steregushchy is a little over 2000tons at 105m, and the US Navy's LCS-1 is a little under 3000tons at 115m.
Admittedly, I think the game might be underestimating crew numbers a tad for the ships, but this is easy to mod. =)
Agreed on the heavier. But then when we look at the DN numbers ... things get out of whack for the masses.
80 people on a 90m ship sounds reasonable though.
80 people on a 90m ship sounds reasonable though.
It is a little odd with the crewnumbers. I mean the cruiser numbers are reasonable to high. Bear with me here. I consider 80ish crewers to be relatively high if we consider advances in many areas that are now more crewintensive. Something like sensors, cooking and not least actual combat controls. But the numbers aren't entirely unreasonable.
For dreadnaughts it swings madly in the other direction. Less than 250 crewers for a ship of that size is about half of what I would expect, with my previous mentioned efficiency advances. Without those advances it would be a lot more.
If the masses given were to be tons, then it would be somewhat high, as others have mentioned, but not surprisingly so. Space ships aren't limited by requiring the ability to float. Technically you can just add whatever you have power for onto them. In this case we must think of the super dense reactors, containment borders, and not the least armour. Think about the power of the weapons in the game and how inefficient they are at actually killing ships. The armour must be pretty damn tough, dense and heavy.
For dreadnaughts it swings madly in the other direction. Less than 250 crewers for a ship of that size is about half of what I would expect, with my previous mentioned efficiency advances. Without those advances it would be a lot more.
If the masses given were to be tons, then it would be somewhat high, as others have mentioned, but not surprisingly so. Space ships aren't limited by requiring the ability to float. Technically you can just add whatever you have power for onto them. In this case we must think of the super dense reactors, containment borders, and not the least armour. Think about the power of the weapons in the game and how inefficient they are at actually killing ships. The armour must be pretty damn tough, dense and heavy.
In my opinion crew should be higher when you consider the time ships may spend on a missions, based on this then crew count should be higher and the space for recreational areas should be rather high. Even though there are some abstraction of crews being relieved by abstracted support ships if within support of naval bases.
From what I can see:
- There seem to be a fixed number of crew required to run a ship's systems, regardless of the size of the ship
- The number of crew needed to run those systems does not increase significantly as size increases
Perhaps larger ships have better automation systems?
I can imagine that larger ships are also more comfortable for their crews. If we are talking about a ship that is 300m long (and depending on whose measurements, perhaps as long as 500m), having around 250 crew would mean that they could live more comfortably. Larger ships are generally designed for longer range, so perhaps more comfort would be a necessity.
Currently many wet warships have incredibly cramped conditions, and yet crewers might not leave them for months. It isn't exactly something they love, but it doesn't seem like it affects them adversely, or else there were not be so many returns after ended contracts. Personal experience also speaks for me here. I served on a trainingship for kadets and seamen in training. It was an old minelayer and the entire minedeck was converted into a barracks. A ship which was already fairly cramped at the regular 60 crewers, was suddenly 135-145 crew. Talk about being like in a submarine (mind you, the small nuclear attack subs stay at sea for very long times, sometimes not even seeing daylight for months). But not a one person suffered from this, and we lived onboard when in port. That is years on end for some of the old farts. Just for comparison, the ship was 70 meters long and around 10 meters wide and a draft of 2-3 meter (depending on many factors). An old bathtub crammed full of people.
Comfort on military vessels is overrated, not that it wouldn't be appreciated. I actually have some experience there too as I got transfered to a smaller, newer patrol vessel where we were bunked in twoman rooms with bath and toilet, and TV if we had one to share (in my room we did not). It was a lot better, but it lacked something, and I understood it was a sort of cosiness that came with the other vessel. Humans are highly adaptable, and we cope better with many people than with few people.
Comfort on military vessels is overrated, not that it wouldn't be appreciated. I actually have some experience there too as I got transfered to a smaller, newer patrol vessel where we were bunked in twoman rooms with bath and toilet, and TV if we had one to share (in my room we did not). It was a lot better, but it lacked something, and I understood it was a sort of cosiness that came with the other vessel. Humans are highly adaptable, and we cope better with many people than with few people.
The analogy to nuclear submarines is more appropriate than surface ships IMO. And attack/missle subs are incredibly cramped as well. No daylight ... well, these ships are going to be spending extended periods of time away from stars themselves. The other consideration is that people are going to away for years at a time, not months (like in a nuclear submarine), where communication with family is NOT possible. Troops that get deployed at the very least can get the occasional communication with family.
What I was saying earlier is that you have a ship with perhaps as much as 20 times the internal volume (and perhaps greater in terms of mass), and less than 3 times as many crew. What goes in there? Well, I can imagine for a dreadnought, a greater proportion of the volume will go to the reactor, weapons, and superstructure, but what else? I imagine fuel and supplies would be a factor. Generally, larger ships are more capable of long range independent operations. They are going to need to store several years of food and fuel, plus enough ammunition to carry out an extended military campaign aboard these vessels.
Look at this picture again - note the layout closely:
http://sots2.rorschach.net/images/e/eb/SotS2_Dossier_0.png
You are right though that we humans are adaptable. Still, life could not be comfortable aboard these ships; at least not by the standards of a person living in the early 21st century in a developed nation.
The other consideration is that we are talking for years now, not months. The crew ... becomes your family, much more so than any military deployment on earth. I imagine though that by the 25th century, they would have virtual reality systems that took no space up that the crew could use or something like that. There may be other things on board. Alcohol for example, on occasion. Obviously, if used liberally, it will be very bad, but in moderate quantities, it might help crew morale.
Finally, it is a testament to Kerberos that they would make such a diagram (the one I referenced). They have tried to make this all the more ... believable.
What I was saying earlier is that you have a ship with perhaps as much as 20 times the internal volume (and perhaps greater in terms of mass), and less than 3 times as many crew. What goes in there? Well, I can imagine for a dreadnought, a greater proportion of the volume will go to the reactor, weapons, and superstructure, but what else? I imagine fuel and supplies would be a factor. Generally, larger ships are more capable of long range independent operations. They are going to need to store several years of food and fuel, plus enough ammunition to carry out an extended military campaign aboard these vessels.
Look at this picture again - note the layout closely:
http://sots2.rorschach.net/images/e/eb/SotS2_Dossier_0.png
You are right though that we humans are adaptable. Still, life could not be comfortable aboard these ships; at least not by the standards of a person living in the early 21st century in a developed nation.
The other consideration is that we are talking for years now, not months. The crew ... becomes your family, much more so than any military deployment on earth. I imagine though that by the 25th century, they would have virtual reality systems that took no space up that the crew could use or something like that. There may be other things on board. Alcohol for example, on occasion. Obviously, if used liberally, it will be very bad, but in moderate quantities, it might help crew morale.
Finally, it is a testament to Kerberos that they would make such a diagram (the one I referenced). They have tried to make this all the more ... believable.
Last edited:
WEll for a carrier, if they're manned, then you need a lot more.
Today's Nimitz has well over several thousand people for all types of things.
Today's Nimitz has well over several thousand people for all types of things.
Well, the Nimitz class has about 3,200 for ship and 2,500 for air complement. Remember that this is the 25th century, so perhaps the amount of crew could be reduced significantly?
Certainly, most dreadnoughts in SOTS 2 (which in terms of length and volume anyways are close enough to the Nimitz in terms of size class to make comparisons) are more akin to battleships than carriers, but as I mentioned, perhaps there are systems that you only need one person for regardless of ship size?
We need a breakdown of the crew to get valid estimates here.
To be quite honest, a lot of crew probably AREN'T even considered by them. It takes a plethora of engineers to keep that carrier running.
But you have to remember that it's future, so we can assume that A LOT of stuff is done by robotics and automation, crew only being pretty much supervisors.
When you have to research drones more advanced drones to get them to do anything but fly and shoot then you realize that perhaps they really AREN'T all done by robots.
Well, there is AI Command, which does a lot by robots (in theory). Of course, by that theory, AI command should reduce crew requirements substantially.
AI Command... does it do anything for beam weapons? I always put it on cause it costs the most and so I naturally assume it's the best, but still.
A.I. command is relatively end-game though.
A.I. command is relatively end-game though.
Yeah, but they're that way to make them easy to distinguish on the battlefield rather than any nod to realism. I mean if we do it visually, either Cruisers are roughly the size of France, or planets in the SotS universe are considerably smaller than our own moon.
Although Midgets of the Stars would be a cool title now I come to think of it.
They're also going to need something to replenish the atmosphere at frequent intervals.
If they can scrub the carbon dioxide out regularly, thing should be fine, so long as there aren't any leaks or other dangerous chemicals inside. Or for that matter, anything radioactive.
Plasma torch atmosphere processors are apparently a research that does nothing at this stage but sounds feasible.