- This topic has 12 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With the possibility of operating on Ximni ships for a while, some people have had the opportunity to start a little training.
One thing that was made clear straight away with the jump drive, we need unambiguous terms to specify heading (the direction the ship faces), absolute bearing (the direction of intended travel), and distance. One suggestion was “mark”, but that can lead to confusion.In our sims, Slate and I used Facing for the direction of the ship, and then Barring and Distance because that is what the helm puts into the jump commands.
Then Initialize said out by Helm to let Engineering know to boost the drive from O% to 100%-300%, this can change as some times a shorter jump needs less power while a longer jump needs less power Slate has a graph explaining it, Engineering gives an affirmative to say they’ve powered the drive.
This affirmative word or phrase can be something that the Helm and Engineer agree on together. Popular ones are “Drive Boosted” “Jump is go” or my favorite “Go Go GO!”.
We prefer phrases instead of single words as they can help to cut through cross talk so the Helm knows it’s their turn.
Helm hits the confirm button and says out loud that they’ve done it.
This is Engineering’s queue to take all the power back out of the jump drive.
Helm can then begin the count down. At 300% in a Xim ship it should be Five seconds between the confirm and transition back to real space at the destination.So to simplify what I said.
1. Science or Jumpmaster gives Facing, Barring, and Direction(In that order).
2. Helm confirms Facing, Barring, and Direction; Makes corrections if needed. Gets the coordinates inputted.
3. Helm hits Initialize and says out loud “Initializing Jump”.
4. Engineering gives powers drive and informs Helm. Example “Go Go Go!”
5. Helm hits Confirm in jump command and says out loud “Confirming Jump”
6. Engineering drops power in drive to 0% and manages power for situation. Example: if combat jump restores power to beams and shields. If not, puts a single coolant into jump drive and leaves ship with sensors, maneuvering, and impulse powered.
7. Helm counts down the jump timer.steps 3,4,5,6, and 7 should be happening within 5 seconds.
It seems presumptuous to quibble about terminology when people have already put a lot of effort and love into working something out.
Bearing is certainly the term I would have chosen.
Distance makes sense if that is on the screen. I would have considered range but it is a moot point.But rather than “Facing” I would suggest “Heading” as I believe that is the customary term for the direction of ship’s travel excluding leeway, current etc. as in “Come to a heading of zero five nine”.
As an engineer, my usual confirmation of system with boosted energy is “hot” as in “Manoeuvre hot!” “Beams hot!” “Tubes hot” “Drive hot!” Short but distinctive.
Adele Mundy was there when the brainstorm for using “facing” instead of “mark” came up, although I forget who exactly suggested that. Feil and I (with others) gave it a trial run, and it works very well, without any ambiguity. I’ve since updated my jump drive training documents to prefer that. I left in “mark” as some crews are using that.
Terminology in a jump ship crew is crucial. While most jumps can tolerate some delay and shuffling on the crew’s part, there is no time whatsoever to spare when the ship starts to take damage. If the ship loses its jump drive, there’ll be mere seconds to get to the lifepods. If it doesn’t have enough energy to jump, its equally dead.
The “words” used have to be absolutely consistent, unique to the task, explicitly ordered, and fanatically drilled. The “jump” process has to move from conscious thought to automatic, unerring, lightning speed response. Even if the only time that degree of crew skill is needed is when the ship starts to take damage and is being overwhelmed.
The words have to bypass any need for translation/comprehension, because while that translation is fast, it’s still a fraction of a second of additional time. For example, “mark 2-4-5” (context has to be translated – “mark” has been used in other ways – “jump on my mark”). “heading” or “direction” or “bearing” (did science mean heading or bearing? these terms in a warp ship are the same thing and people have been using them interchangeably for so long that helm will have to decipher it, and the potential for science-error is high).
The words have to be clearly distinguishable and cut through other cross-chatter. A jump ship should be noisy, and not just when its crew is partying with several cases of rum. Everyone should be calling out what they are doing and when they are done, so the engineer can appropriately issue and cut power. Every tick of energy should be hoarded for that sudden emergency jump. If the syllables for the jump can be confused with other less critical functions, there’s a chance the automatic-response will be delayed with “did I just hear jump hot or beams hot; can everyone shut up a moment so I can hear?”
As I said in the “mark” vs. “facing” debate, I don’t particularly care what terms are used (well, outside of the above litany of “absolutely consistent, unique to the task, explicitly ordered, and fanatically drilled”). Each captain and crew will find out what works best for their ship and crew; no amount of my desire for interchangeable, trained jump-drive crewmen will ever change that.
@Feil and I are aligned on how a jump ship ought to operated for maximum efficiency. We’ve gotten a lot of sim jump drive practice with varying crews. We’ve had ships that decimated enemy fleets without taking any damage at all, and ships that sank so fast the crew was left blinking at their consoles wondering what happened.
It’s not enough to just “get there and try to kill the enemy”. Combat maneuvers require a trained/drilled crew, and those are what make a jump ship’s surprise attack so deadly. Standard warp tactics do not apply and a jump ship ought not be chasing things around on impulse. Strategic jumps should keep the ship safe while any type of attack is used.
I’d even go so far to say that “facing” is not at all part of “jump”. Turning the ship takes time and is its own maneuver, with its own energy requirements, just like loading ordnance. While turning may overlap Helm entering bearing/distance, it’s really not part of the 7-step jump process. Again, this is for that “sudden emergency jump” time-shortening. If you are doing a sudden emergency jump, you don’t care where the ship is pointed and you don’t want to eat a fraction of a second trying to bypass your fanatically drilled “facing” process. Yes, for any combat jump, “facing” is needed, but it should be thought of as a separate function.
It seems presumptuous to quibble about terminology when people have already put a lot of effort and love into working something out.
//I’m sorry, but Slate herself is one of the three or four big names when it comes to jump theory (all of which coincide on the importance of being absolutely clear). Also, as of last week she became the first full-time jump drive captain of the USN (and of the big RPs), which is farther than all the other big names we had. I only kept an eye on all those projects, Blacklocke’s, Rew’s and Slate-Feil’s, and I admire all the work they all put, because it means this is as close to perfecting as can be right now.
For my experience in a couple of Slate’s test, the importance of drilling can’t possibly be stressed enough. As someone who spent all of his time polishing warp tactics, I was (am) totally unprepared for the finesse needed at all times, but it was clearly possible to produce results.
I hope I was not misunderstood. I meant that it would be presumptuous of me to quibble about terminology. I was not debating the need for unambiguity.
Thanks for explaining why Facing turned out to be a good choice. I am really looking forward to trying this out!
The terms used for the TSN are heading, for the direction of travel and jump bearing for the jump computer. It should already be standard practise to use the term heading to say which why the ship should travel (if this is not, then people need to read up on it! It has been practise for a long time now)
I am aware of all the work that has gone in to documenting jump tactics and strategy, and it is impressive. Much of the theory is sound and works and matches what I did when I commanded a TSN jump ship a couple of years ago.
Recently I have been working with a couple of officers to bring them up to speed on using a jump ship and and happy with the crews I have been working with.
O% to 100%-300%, this can change as some times a shorter jump needs less power while a longer jump needs less power Slate has a graph explaining it,
We need to take in to account our energy efficiency values for this as that will change this graph.
1. Science or Jumpmaster gives Facing, Barring, and Direction(In that order).
Standard protocol for the TSN is for the captain to state these.
There are a couple of other points about the process too. For example, helm sets the coordinates but doesn’t confirm until told to jump. This is because sometimes you need to tweak the value by one up or down at the last second. The command then is initiate, telling both engineering to boost power and helm to confirm and initiate.
When I have the opportunity,I will record a TSN jump crew operating the ship and write up standardised protocols. Note: this will not be theory or tactics, just protocols for who does what and terminology. This is improtant in our group as it needs to be consistent. Officers tranferring form one ship to the next need to be using the same terminology and protocols and have the same understanding at all times. Each crew behaves differently, but these are the fubdamentals that we build upon.
I went through the same process of trail and error with my own crew (pre-TSN) and we became exceptionally good with a TSN jump ship. The only thing that has changed since then and now is the Ximni’s ‘quick jump’ and long range beams adding a couple more tactical opportunities to harness.
Something else to note too – the use of combat orders does not need to change with jump drive ships. The ideas and principles conveyed by combat orders can still be translated into coordinating a jump ship. What differs is their application and execution. Delta 3 for example will still work in both warp and jump drive vessels – close to beam range, authorised to use homing torpedoes. As will evasive patterns for example the Theta 2 order, calling for fighters and drones to be intercepted. The precise execution is different however, and the situations in which a combat order is applied will also vary.
Just like when we use a different class of ship, we need to figure out how to apply the combat orders to a ship with a different drive system.
@Slate I just read over the docs you’ve written up for Jump Drive Training. You’re an animal! I can’t give you enough props for the thought and effort you put into them.
OOC/ Repeat of jump drive training this upcoming Sunday. See the post over at the Artemis forums: http://artemis.forumchitchat.com/post/online-jump-drive-training-8115206?pid=1292297021
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.