Re: [FT] Some ideas on crew quality (longish)

Here's a post from Jan 2000 that may interest you.
It sure interested me, which is why I still have it!

on 02.7.1 4:43 AM, Charles Taylor at nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk
scribbleth:
> 
> One of the subjects that crops up occasionally is the subject of crew
> quality in Full Thrust, my ideas on the subject are as follows:

=====
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 01:25:49 -0500
From: Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay <kaladorn@home.com>
Subject: Naval Quality Poll [ Long but worth it I hope ]

I'll advance a slightly different standard to what beth suggested,
though along the same lines. Here is what one might want to rate a Star
Navy upon. Note the rating charts at the end are based on my conceptions
of how the historical antecedents molded together to form what we appear
to have in the modern GZGverse so are subject to debate.

Crews:

1) Training - How well was the crew trained? How often? How qualified
and current were the instructors and techniques? How pertinent was the
training? A rating of 1 indicates a crew rarely or poorly trained. A
rating of 5 indicates a crew that trains constantly with state of the
art technology and instruction techniques constantly modified to reflect
current operational experience by quality instructors.

2) Professionalism - What are the traditions of the service and how do
its members carry themselves? Do they carry out their duties reluctantly
given the risks or willingly and even enthusiastically? Do they fear the
job and its dangers or do they relish the work and the challenge? Does
the service have a tradition of soldiering on in the face of anything
with a stiff upper lip, or of cutting and running at the first sign of
spine in the enemy? A rating of 1 means a very reluctant crew or a crew
from a navy with a history of defeat and no confidence. A rating of 5
means a confident crew willing to enthusiastically tackle even dangerous
work and with a lot of belief in their own abilities.

3) Experience - Has the average crew likely never fired a shot in anger?
Or has every crew in the service been to hell and back? Will they panic
at the sight of the enemy due to too little experience or too much? Or
will they carry on like veterans even as the hull caves in from missile
impacts? A rating of 1 means an inexperienced and nervous crew, or
perhaps a crew beaten to the point of being broken. A rating of 5 means
almost a fatalistic sense of apathy that allows the crew to operate like
a well oiled combat machine or alternately showing only that spark of
fear that makes men perform at 110%, but that does not control them.

4) Spirit - Are the crew drawn from warrior cultures that train from
youth in martial ways? Or are they from a culture of pacifism? Are they
the kind to take a kick in the teeth as a signal to stay down or to get
up, rip off the leg, and beat the offender to death with it? A rating of
1 means a group of p'tah unworthy to crawl the bilges of a Klingon
garbage scow, whereas a rating of 5 means a crack crew of Warrior-Poets,
singing as they meet the foe in mortal combat. (Okay, I wax unduly
poetic, but you get the idea).

5) Uniformity - How uniform is the distribution of training, experience,
etc. across their Navy? A rating of 1 implies that their are bastions of
high skill and cess pits of low skill commonly scattered across their
forces. A rating of 5 implies a very even distribution, with no one area
having more than its share of great crews, or of bad ones.

Officer Corps:

1) Training - as above, except as it applies to their officer corps
(command rank)

2) Professionalism - ditto

3) Experience - ditto

4) Freedom To Act - How much freedom to act are officers below flag rank
granted? Can a Captain start a war based on a suspicion? Can he cross a
border to attack an enemy fleet that has not yet done anything but
collect? Or is he afraid to alter his orders to transfer baby food from
planet Gerber to planet Pampers even though the Evil Zargothian Death
Hordes have piled across his borders and headed for his fleet base? A
rating of 1 implies extreme timidity, where officers fear the
repercussions of their actions and will not alter even their most minor
of orders without higher authority. A rating of 5 implies Captains who
don't fear to take command of small planets if the need arises.

5) Uniformity - as in the example for crew

Flag Ranks:

1) Training - as above, but as it pertains to flag rank officers and
covering such things as large scale wargames, simulations, live fire
excercises, etc.

2) Professionalism - similarly so

3) Experience - ditto

4) Freedom to Act - Admirals and the like are political beasts, and this
represents how much they feel free to act without the authority of those
higher on the political food chain. A rating of 1 implies political
hacks, a rating of 5 implies a relative impugnity to outside influence
and a freedom to act as necessary.

5) Uniformity - similar to that above, how uniform is the level of flag
rank skills across the upper echelons of the Star Navy?

6) Strategic Insight - A special skill of flag officers and those
involved in the big picture. Can the Admiral be suckered with a simple
yet apparently valuable target a sector away, thus exposing a flank? Or
is the Admiral likely to appear to take the bait while actually
suckering the force that lays a trap for him? Can the Admiral see moves
within moves within moves, or is he lucky to spot broad strategic
trends? Is he subtle and perceptive, or obvious and straightforward? A
rating of 1 suggests a low level of insight - a straightforward player
with little subtlety and little depth of perception. A rating of 5
suggests a player of so many levels of games most of us would be lost
trying to catalogue them. No act is for such a person an unmotivated
act....

Fleet Vessels:

1) Maintenance Quality - A rating of 1 here implies crews or techs just
barely give the ship enough attention to keep it spaceworthy, whether
from incompetence, apathy, or actual antipathy. A rating of 5 implies
the techs take great care of the ships, with excellent skills, and this
is enhanced by great efforts from motivated crews. Tip top fighting
ships.

2) Maintenance Frequency - A rating of 1 implies this Star Navy either
through calumny or through situation presses its ships to or beyond
their normal operational limits without proper maintenance on an
on-going basis. A rating of 5 implies more-than required maintenance
leading to minimal wear.

3) Design Quality - A rating of 1 implies some fool who failed
engineering school drew the plans on a napkin, got a marketing guy, and
sold the plans to the NAC Admiralty. A rating of 5 implies some genius
who failed engineering school because the Philistines couldn't
appreciate him drew an incredible design on a napkin, got a marketing
guy, and sold his plans for the Uberkillership to the NSL Naval Design
Board.

4) Average Operational Life - A rating of 1 means ships of this force,
for whatever reason, tend to drop out of service in 60-75% of the
projected normal operational life. A rating of 5 means often times the
force manages to squeeze 200% of the operational life out of its aging
yet somehow still effective vessels.

Now, having come up with these categories, let me suggest some quality
levels

Crew
	  TRAIN  PROF EXP SPIRIT UNIFORMITY
NAC	    4	  4    4    4	    4	      One of the best all around

NSL	    4	  4    3    4	    3	      Good, but less uniform
than the NAC
FSE	    3	  3    3    3	    2	      Of kind of varying quality

ESU	    2	  3    4    3	    2	      varying quality, but have
fought in a lot of spots
NI	    3	  3    3    4	    4	      smaller, but good
IF	    2	  2    3    3	    1	      given to feudal structure
RH	    ?  <I have no idea>
IC	    ?  <ditto>
OU	    3	  3    2    3	    3	      good navy, but can't fight
too much
JAP	    4	  3    1    3	    3	      almost never has to fight
SWISS	    3	  3    1    2	    3	      good navy, doesn't get out
much
LLAR	    2	  2    2    3	    2	      poor and often harried
UNSC	    4	  3    3    3	    3	      A force with potential yet
unrealized
FCT	    2	  2    2    4	    2	      A little Texican *style*
in space
KNG	    3	  4    2    3	    4	      Small, professional,
doesn't fight much though
PAU	    2	  2    4    3	    3	      Lots of fights, but not
backed with lots of bucks
KRAVAK	    4	  4*   4    5	    2	      * - For different reasons
...

GHURKA	    1	  3    2    5	    4	      very small, poor, and
little skilled in ships
New French  2	  2    2    3	    4
===========================================================
Officer Corps
	  TRAIN  PROF EXP FREED UNIFORMITY
NAC	    4	  4    4    3	    4	      very professional officer
corps, but some timidity (politics)
NSL	    4	  4    3    4	    4	      second best in space
FSE	    3	  3    3    3	    3
ESU	    3	  3    4    2	    3	      big, but more variable
than the NAC
NI	    3	  3    3    3	    4	      good, but aware of their
limits
IF	    2	  2    3    3	    2	      variable with the caliph
in question
RH	    ?  <I have no idea>
IC	    ?  <ditto>
OU	    3	  4    2    3	    4	      a good force, high
standards
JAP	    4	  4    2    2	    4	      well trained, very
disciplined
SWISS	    3	  3    2    3	    3
LLAR	    2	  2    2    3	    2	      poorly funded, hard
pressed
UNSC	    5	  3    2    3	    3	      great training, big future
once experience acquired
FCT	    3	  3    3    4	    2	      some good leaders in this
lot
KNG	    3	  4    2    4	    4	      small force with
confidence in its officers
PAU	    2	  2    3    4	    2	      not the best disciplined
KRAVAK	    4	  4*   5    3	    2	      (as above for note)

GHURKA	    2	  4    2    3	    4	      aspire to RN standards
New French  2	  3    3    3	    4	      small cadre of good men
============================================
Flag Officers
	  TRAIN  PROF EXP FREED UNIFORMITY  STRATINS
NAC	    4	  4    4    3	    4	       3       sometimes too
political or timid or arrogant
NSL	    3	  4    3    4	    3	       4       dangerously
effective
FSE	    3	  3    3    3	    3	       3       best in fighter
warfare
ESU	    2	  3    4    3	    3	       4       good at what they
do if allowed by commissars
NI	    2	  3    2    4	    2	       3       not a very big
flag staff
IF	    1	  2    2    4	    1	       1       often the caliph,
with little training
RH	    ?  <I have no idea>
IC	    ?  <ditto>
OU	    2	  3    2    3	    4	       3       good solid mid
power
JAP	    3	  3    1    2	    4	       3       smart, but
restricted
SWISS	    2	  3    1    2	    4	       2       small staff,
rarely tried
LLAR	    2	  2    2    3	    3	       2       thrown at the job

UNSC	    3	  3    2    2	    3	       3       not bad, ways to
go yet
FCT	    2	  2    3    5	    2	       4       some smart
cookies, don't play by rules
KNG	    3	  4    2    4	    4	       3       small effective
flag staff
PAU	    1	  2    2    3	    2	       2       not well versed
in large fleets
KRAVAK	    3	  4*   3    4	    2	       4       dangerous, but
not as much in large forces

GHURKA	    1	  3    1    3	    4	       1       haven't really
got this yet
New French  1	  3    2    3	    4	       3       a bit of
background helps the NFR
================================================
Space Fleet:
	    MAINTQ    MAINTF	 DESIGNQ     SERVLIFE
NAC	      4 	3	    2		3	should have
hired better designers
NSL	      4 	3	    4		3	good german
engineering
FSE	      3 	3	    3		3
ESU	      2 	2	    3		3	they run em long
n hard
NI	      4 	3	    3		4	stretch to last
IF	      2 	1	    2		2	not the pick of
the litter
RH	    ?  <I have no idea>
IC	    ?  <ditto>
OU	      3 	3	    4		4	built to last
because they must
JAP	      4 	4	    4		4	hey, it's
Japanese hardware!
SWISS	      3 	3	    4		3	good designers,
also make watches
LLAR	      2 	1	    2		3	don't know how
they last
UNSC	      3 	3	    4		?	not around long
enough yet
FCT	      4 	3	    3		3	take care of yer
star hoss!
KNG	      4 	4	    3		4	sharp bunch
PAU	      2 	2	    2		4	it runs, sort
of.
KRAVAK	      3 	3	    3		3	nothing special,
just alien

GHURKA	      2 	4	    2		4	kept working by
frequent reworking
New French    3 	4	    3		4	another small
power working on long lifespans

Final thoughts:
Professionalism isn't always lower than you'd expect because a nation
wants it so. It is sometimes hard to make work. Same goes for training -
it doesn't reflect always a poor attitude - sometimes just poor tech or
budget or time alloted. And sometimes a limited freedom to act is a
result of politics... such as scarcity of supply. This colours strategy,
but doesn't make bad officers or admirals.

Anyway, as usual, I welcome counterpoints. Hope this was of some
interest. G'night list.

T.

=====
Edward Lipsett
Intercom, Ltd.
Fukuoka, Japan
Tel: 092-712-9120
Fax: 092-712-9220
translation@intercomltd.com
http://www.intercomltd.com