Re: (2050) Automating a starship?

 In message 2050, [email removed] (Mark F. Cook) writes:
 >
 >Here's stumper that one of my MT campaign players just handed me the
 >other day.
 >
 >We were talking about the campaign and he said (paraphrased) ,"As soon
 >as I get some more cash, I'm going to have the ship's computer
 >upgraded so that just one person can operate the whole thing."  This
 >stopped me cold.  This ship currently requires a minimum crew of
 >three: pilot, navigator, and engineer.  The Ref. rules say that's the
 >MINIMUM.  There are no additional rules for anything like what my
 >player wants to do.  Now, I can wing it and allow him to do what he
 >wants, but I'm concerned on two points.

     Mark, tell me something.  Just how is it that you accidentally
stumble over the gimmick that I was planning to use in the upcoming
adventure that I'll be running?  No, never mind, it's not that
important...spooky, though.  ;-)

 >First, what would be the most logical/least-rule-bending way to do
 >what he wants?  My initial reaction is have him buy two stationary
 >robots (one for engineering and one for nav.) and require a live pilot
 >at all times.

     Good instincts.  Since I was planning to use this little tidbit,
I've done a lot of thinking about the subject.  Actually, I'm doing it
a little bit different--in my upcoming session, the idea is to have a
ship that requires *no* organo-sentient (I like this word :-) ) crew at
all.  This includes a ship that has no provision for life support (hey,
it's a *prototype*, okay? :-) ).  I don't have to tell you why various
factions in the traveller universe would find this little gem desirable,
do I?  No, I didn't think so.  ;-)

 >My reasoning is that a 'mere' computer could never be smart enough
 >(within MT guidelines) to do the jobs,

     Define "mere."  I'm doing it by mixing some technologies--robot
brains and standard computers.  High tech level, of course, but that's
a gimmie.  However, the whole point (at least, in my case) is that it's
*not* off-the-shelf equipment--experimental, and it doesn't work all too
well yet (and will continue so, at least for another tech level).
However, your players and their characters don't necessarily know this--
situation fodder.  Heck, there are lots of things in the real world like
this--it works, sort of, but in a not-especially-practical way; look at
OS/2.  ;-)

 >and it would require at least some synaptic processing, hence robots.

     Bingo.  Give the man a cheroot.  The idea I came up with was
installing a computer *much* larger than the ship needs (say, a Model
5 or 6 on a 200 ton Far Trader hull), and adding a snynaptic processing
module to it, thus making it a robot brain, of a sort.  All the control
lines go into it, and, where it needs independent manipulators, small
maintenance drones are linked to it in a master/slave relationship.
This all works fairly well, since we haven't wandered too far afield
from the published rules.  What I've just done is make a big starship-
shaped robot.  A little extrapolation is needed, but that's all.

     For your purposes, you can go a little simpler--a big computer,
with add-on synaptics and only a rudimentary decision-making
capability (since you expect to have at least one organo-sentient
present at all times).

     Remember one thing about this, though.  Synaptic processors have
to be *taught*.  At the very beginning, your fancy new ship's brain
will be little more than a standard computer with a lot of potential.
It will make mistakes if the crew lets it have too much initiative.
It also runs the risk of developing a personality--there's a lot of
unused potential there.  I'm not necessarily saying that it'll be
truly sentient, but it may act like it.  As I recall, there's a
planetful of sentient robots (the Sabmiqys--Challenge 28, page 31, and
the article is written by Joe Fugate) at TL17.  So our little efforts,
built at more normal (and more available) Imperial tech levels, can
be considered non-sentient, even if they exhibit wilful and irrational
behavior.  :-)  After all, that's not necessarily an attribute of
sentience; my car acts that way all the time, and *it's* not sentient.
I think.  ;-)

 >My robot design skills are pretty much non-existant, but I guess this
 >is a good excuse to learn how, huh?

     Yup.  It's not that difficult.  About like designing vehicles.

 >Second, assuming that I do allow him to succeed, what effect will it
 >have on game balance?  I mean, I assume that GDW/DGP put those crew
 >minimums in there for a reason.  Will allowing a single person with
 >Pilot-1 to fly around the Imperium in a 200 ton Free Trader screw
 >things up?  My initial reaction is "No", but I feel like I'm over-
 >looking some points.

     My considered opinion (considered for several weeks, in fact) is
that it won't have much effect on game balance.  Just limit it.  For
instance, if a very oversized computer is needed as the base platform,
this rules out doing this to really large ships, since they need
computers that big just to operate--there won't be enough spare
capacity available.  Also, it's not a mature technology yet--there're
bound to be some teething problems.  Not to mention having to deal
with training the synaptic processor.

     Actually, now that I think about it, there's no need to get that
elaborate.  Your PCs can just buy a couple of robots with the
appropriate skills in software.  The robot would count as a crewember,
if not especially skilled or disposed to intiative.  There would still
have to be a human in charge.

     Also, I just thought of something else.  Consider attitudes toward
robots.  Vilani, especially, since they're a touch technophobic.  There
has been some anti-robot agitation out Solomani Rim way, too.

 >What do you folks think?

     Should they be allowed to have an (even partially) automated ship?
Sure.  Why not?  Provided, of course, that they're prepared to deal
with (and endure) all the possible negative aspects of the situation.
They may decide that it's not worth the expense and effort.  Or, it may
save their tails in a tight spot.  "You never can tell."  ;-)


- - --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)