Imperial Navy Officers

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Not by the firing element though, the FO is forward for a reason. This a scout on the ground calling for fire. The only way I can see having an FO on the ship calling for ground fire makes any sense is if artillery drones are dumb RPVs which itself doesn't make any sense.

Artillery (and general scouting/monitoring) drones are indeed RPVs, though I imagine they have some intelligence, but not full sapience.

There's usually a human directing them for important tasks, though, since the setting is set up so that human intelligence is superior to all but the most expensive AIs (which are more expensive and less expendable than humans anyway).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Artillery (and general scouting/monitoring) drones are indeed RPVs, though I imagine they have some intelligence, but not full sapience.

All they need to be sapient in GURPS is IQ 6 or more and the ability to use tools. It doesn't matter if they have Hidebound, Incurious, or whatever.

There's usually a human directing them for important tasks, though, since the setting is set up so that human intelligence is superior to all but the most expensive AIs (which are more expensive and less expendable than humans anyway).

I don't think that human intelligence is superior in any way that would prevent a cheap AI from having a decent Forward Observer skill. If they are using the templates from Ultra-Tech (or a variant) none of their traits should impact FO skill, IIRC.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't think that human intelligence is superior in any way that would prevent a cheap AI from having a decent Forward Observer skill. If they are using the templates from Ultra-Tech (or a variant) none of their traits should impact FO skill, IIRC.

Oh, it will have the skill.

But since the final decision about whether or not to take the shot, weighting in all risks and benefits, has to be made by a human, he'll have to have the skill too.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But since the final decision about whether or not to take the shot, weighting in all risks and benefits, has to be made by a human, he'll have to have the skill too.

Why? He doesn't need to know how to calculate the observer target factor or estimate range, or any of the other things that FOs do. What he needs to be able to do is identify the target and make an informed decision on whether and how to engage it. This isn't FO this is Strategy or Tactics.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why? He doesn't need to know how to calculate the observer target factor or estimate range, or any of the other things that FOs do. What he needs to be able to do is identify the target and make an informed decision on whether and how to engage it. This isn't FO this is Strategy or Tactics.

Evaluating the risks means being able to calculate what influences them. He has to take into account all the variables that might affect the shot and that demands that he understand them all, not just relies on a computer assessement of the difficulty.

In order for him to know if something is worth the risk, he has to know the risks pretty well. Has to know the distances involved, the effects of the topology on the ordnance used, the projected yields at ground zero based on cloud cover, the expected reaction of both hostiles and civilians caught near the target, etc.

Besides, I feel it would be very unrealistic if a naval officer who had the responsibility for designating targets would be unable to perform his task if his RPV's expert system had problems. Naval ships in the setting are supposed to be able to fight without AI assistance, even if they normally have access to it.

I really do feel that Forward Observer is the right skill for designating targets from a targeting drone. And I really do feel that naval officers in Flat Black learn how to do that.

Not to mention that a drone without enough computing power to do the job itself might be marginally smaller and more stealthy, not to mention cheaper. It's possible that the ship might carry lots of small drones with only rudimentary IQ to be able to fire-and-forget them to search a large area. When such a drone sends back data that the ship's Mind finds interesting enough to pass to someone with the authority to shoot, he takes direct control of and designates the target through the sensors onboard the drone.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Dabbler*** (Chemistry +3; three other background education skills);

So two at +1 and one at +2?

Economics/TL10 (IQ/H) IQ-1 [2] -12

2 points in an academic background skill? I realize that the Trustees expect their Naval officers to have some grounding in economic theory, but really do they have a B.S. in Economics?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So two at +1 and one at +2?

There's a total of 8 'selections'. A +1 costs 1, +2 costs 2 and +3 costs 4.

This is therefore wrongly noted on my part. It ought to be 4 skills at +1, 2 skills at +2, 1 skill at +3 or any other combination adding up to 4.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

2 points in an academic background skill? I realize that the Trustees expect their Naval officers to have some grounding in economic theory, but really do they have a B.S. in Economics?

No, they do not have a B.S. in Economics. Someone as smart as the typical naval officer would probably learn far more than this from a B.S. degree, not to mention that he'd accumulate a host of support skills such as Mathematics (Statistics), Writing, Research, etc.

They do have two years of courses in it, so it's not unreasonable to expect two points of skill.

And also, background? This skill is actively used to analyse colonies and the economic pressures that present risk factors. Generally, only officers in command or Naval Intel make the final determination, but all naval officers are expected to learn the skills that they might need if they ever commanded a ship of their own.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In order for him to know if something is worth the risk, he has to know the risks pretty well. Has to know the distances involved, the effects of the topology on the ordnance used, the projected yields at ground zero based on cloud cover, the expected reaction of both hostiles and civilians caught near the target, etc.

I don't think that FO really is the skill for this. It is mostly concerned with getting the shots on target. In RL the FO can request a certain method of fire but ultimately the decision is made by the FDC Chief (using Artillery(?)) and approved by the Fire Support Coordinator (using Strategy in lieu of Operations). It seems to me that in approving a target and method of fire the Naval Officer is acting as the FSC, not the FO.

Besides, I feel it would be very unrealistic if a naval officer who had the responsibility for designating targets would be unable to perform his task if his RPV's expert system had problems. Naval ships in the setting are supposed to be able to fight without AI assistance, even if they normally have access to it.

They can though. In the event the drone fails a Marine can call for fire from the deck with the Mk. I eyeball, binos, or whatever else.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't think that FO really is the skill for this. It is mostly concerned with getting the shots on target. In RL the FO can request a certain method of fire but ultimately the decision is made by the FDC Chief (using Artillery(?)) and approved by the Fire Support Coordinator (using Strategy in lieu of Operations). It seems to me that in approving a target and method of fire the Naval Officer is acting as the FSC, not the FO.

Indeed he usually is. But that doesn't mean he can afford to be ignorant of the other skills.

Consider how many real world militaries train people in skills they don't actively use in order to make them better qualified to make decisions on what can and cannot be accomplished using those skills.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

They can though. In the event the drone fails a Marine can call for fire from the deck with the Mk. I eyeball, binos, or whatever else.

Yes, but why have expensive and valuable Marines on the deck when a cheap and disposable dumb drone can serve as the designator, remote controlled from a ship?

Of course Marines will be able to do this as well, but responsibility for handling recon drones (which will certainly also include designation equipment) is mostly the Navies. And Forward Observer/TL10 is canonically the skill for doing so.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Consider how many real world militaries train people in skills they don't actively use in order to make them better qualified to make decisions on what can and cannot be accomplished using those skills.

Real world Naval officers aren't routinely trained as FOs unless they are Forward Air Controllers or SEALS or something.

Yes, but why have expensive and valuable Marines on the deck when a cheap and disposable dumb drone can serve as the designator, remote controlled from a ship?

If the drone fails than it can't be used for observation and if it doesn't fail it then why can't it be used for observation?