Re: Cramped engine rooms

A thread of 4 messages, 19 May 1992 to 26 May 1992, in the order they were sent.

#4156 Re: Cramped engine rooms

Orcinus orca · 19 May 1992

  > 	If a drive has only 60% of its listed space, it requires 100% more
  > maintenance time (or 200% the normal crew) and tasks more
  > significant than minor repairs cannot be done without opening up
  > the hull to get more access space to components.  All tasks that
  > can be performed are two difficulty levels harder.
  > Comments?
  > - -george william herbert

This is a good idea, but...

You're reducing the amount of working space to 20% of the normal.
Then you're saying you can partially counterbalance the difficulty
of getting in that smaller space to repair things by squeezing
MORE people into there?

I think the bit about adding additional crew needs to be reworked
to reflect diminishing returns - at some point, adding an extra crew
member is going to cost you because of cramped space.  I think that
point comes well before you reach squeezing your normal crew into
10% of the space they're used to (twice the normal crew in 20% of
normal workspace).

Say, if you reduce the engine workspace, you still need the same
size crew, but fewer of them can work at once, thus increasing repair
time and difficulty.  Or some variation thereof.
- --
John H. Kim
[email removed]
[email removed]

#4158 Re: cramped engine rooms

C. Roald · 19 May 1992 · reply to #4156

>	If a drive has only 70% of its listed space, it requires 40% more
>maintenance time (or 140% of the engineering crew) and all maintenance

Isn't the idea of cramming 140% of the personnel into 40% of the space
just a little improbable?  Too many cooks and all that?

    c.r.

- --
And I thought classical music was boring!	-- Calvin

#4179 Re: (4158) Re: cramped engine rooms

Robert S. Dean · 20 May 1992 · reply to #4158

"C. Roald" [email removed] writes:
> Subject: (4158) Re: cramped engine rooms
>
> >	If a drive has only 70% of its listed space, it requires 40% more
> >maintenance time (or 140% of the engineering crew) and all maintenance
>
> Isn't the idea of cramming 140% of the personnel into 40% of the space
> just a little improbable?  Too many cooks and all that?

Yes, but in George's defense I'll point out that the actual "workspace" of
the engineers is not included in the volume of the drive; it is included
in the volume of the staterooms and other accommodations.  At least that
is how the game is currently rationalized.

Rob Dean

#4238 Re: Cramped Engine Rooms

George W Herbert · 26 May 1992 · reply to #4179

	Steve Higginbotham commented in reply to my first defense of
the cramped engine spaces rule:

>George, in the boats we did maintenance 24 hours a day.  One watch on,
>one watch maintenance, one watch asleep.  From the time the boat left
>port till after it returned.

	I would argue that current submarines qualify for the Cramped Spaces
rule, thus validating it rather than voiding it 8-)
	The US Subs have about 20% less work space than surface ships
do for the same amount of machinery (rough estimate from n-tens of plans
I've been priviledged to look over while I was at school in Naval Architecture)
so they would exemplify the "moderately cramped" rule.  Surface ships do not
in general operate under the same 3 full watch system as subs do, at least
the ones whose crews and officers I've talked with.  Nearly everyone
keeps relatively normal sleeping hours...
	Soviet subs... well, (ugh yuck) they're real cramped.  30% or more
less space than desirable.

- -george william herbert