What would you want in a RT2e? Lower starting power level? More ship options/designs? A better "money" system?

Personally I want more information on the fringes of the askellon sector, since that's probably where RT2E would take place. Aside from that, I want to see how they would handle the free form system of DH2e with RT. unlike DH, character roles actually matter a lot, especially in the case of rogue traders astropaths, and Navigators. Handling them as elite advances could be particularly interesting.

Other than that, more core ship hulls, and streamlined rules for ship combat.

I was thinking about a lower starting power level for the game too. It always felt as if I were starting in the middle of my career in the game. I also think they should switch to a point based monetary system. Rolling just feels to random.

With the actual supposed wealth of a RT I think the Profit factor (Influence) system is arguably more appropriate than in DH. After all, A beginning RT makes Donald Trump look like a peasant! What I would like to see is the following:

Clean up the Endeavor system so that it makes more sense.

Treat Rogue trader classes as sort of an Elite advance from DH2. You could still start the game as said classes using the Origin path (A system I actually liked) but you could ALSO reach them as an Elite advance from DH2

Space combat: Clean up to feel more like BFG. VU should be shorter as should turns. (I would recommend perhaps a 3-5 minute turn which would feel more like the pace of Naval combat for us NAV vets.)

Define what a ship is capable of better. I think FFG overestimated the size of BFG ships. While the fluff certainly said they were huge, they never specifically gave dimensions of them. If we use the current measurements as feet rather than meters and reduce crew size, the ships become more rational. At this size, A frigate is still half again as large as a modern day Aircraft carrier but not a friggin Star destroyer. At that point the current capabilities actually make a little more sense. At the current size, a frigate would have a lot more capability than the current system allows!

Rad is heading toward the right fixes, but I'd suggest a different approach. I, too, like the PF (Influence) system. The only part that's broken is the bonus AP ship components, and those can be reasonably worked out. Endeavors being the heart of the game, more space should have been dedicated to it. Examples should have been more numerous and much more clear, with common objectives, and even a random table or two (or six).

Yes, character classes could benefit from the DH 2.0 remix, and they can easily transition from DH 2.0 to RT, with the exception of the Navigator. The Imperium seems to like to pigeon-hole people anyway.

Space combat needs a lot of work, and I really think would benefit by having 2 systems laid out, concrete and abstract. The original rules have this, but the abstract is written abstractly, and that shouldn't be. Both should be written explicitly. I disagree with Rad about the time scale. In fact, I'd deliberately avoid any time scale. If players want a turn to represent 5 minutes or an hour, the system should provide for that without missing a beat. There should be simultaneous movement. Turn-based movement is necessary for speed-of-play in BFG. RPGs are supposed to be more character-oriented.

I also have no problem with the size scale. In fact, I rather like it. There are parts of ship that nobody has seen in decades, hidey-holes where hullghasts creep. Some of the ship components need re-thinking, though. Librariums, or other similar extras shouldn't require a fourth of the energy and/or space a macrobattery needs, they should just be hard to acquire. The play balance of these items should be handled by individual GMs, not adjudicated through the rules. In the end, some of our GMs are going to throw game-balance out the door anyway, or never consider it in the first place.

There are so many extra ship components that could have been added. This adds to variety without additional complexity, and that's always desireable. Interesting choices is at the heart of roleplaying.

I like the influence system as well but if you combine it with a point system I think it would work better. Your empire generates 20 points you need a new macro cannon that costs 15 points, make an influence roll to see if one is available. If yes you spend the 15 points, if not you don't. If you want to improve your roll spend the 20. I think it would keep the amount of rolling down and cause people to budget.

With all due respect, that's just money with fewer 0's. It's still an expenditure system. I'm sure the PF system can be improved on, but I think that will be achieved from outside the box.

A revamped space combat system.

I don't see any problem with the DH 2e class system in Rogue Trader. Just make Rogue Trader (Warrant holder), Navigator and Astropath a specific choice and/or elite advance (treat it like Mechanicus Implants).

With all due respect, that's just money with fewer 0's. It's still an expenditure system. I'm sure the PF system can be improved on, but I think that will be achieved from outside the box.

I'm not sure why an expenditure system would be bad. I feel that it could just used for big things like ships, ship parts, colonies, colony expansions, and the like. Things like personal weapons I can see not using a point system. Although in my campaign players would always try for the best weapon they could get because there wasn't any downside to a roll of the dice and it made feel sort of like gambling with other peoples money. "Rolling for the best quality tau rifle,Now I'm rolling for a best quality power armor, Rolling for the holy best quality force blade" there should be limits on things. I eventually made it so that they had to do mini adventures if they wanted high quality items.

A revamped space combat system.

I don't see any problem with the DH 2e class system in Rogue Trader. Just make Rogue Trader (Warrant holder), Navigator and Astropath a specific choice and/or elite advance (treat it like Mechanicus Implants).

Interesting, so make the warrant and/or positions on the ship xp buys? I like the idea of a new warrant costing less than an older one. It would certainly offer more flexibility in character background creation. "I have a new warrant (500xp), I was a navy officer (500xp), Heroic origin (1000xp)"

With all due respect, that's just money with fewer 0's. It's still an expenditure system. I'm sure the PF system can be improved on, but I think that will be achieved from outside the box.

I'm not sure why an expenditure system would be bad. I feel that it could just used for big things like ships, ship parts, colonies, colony expansions, and the like. Things like personal weapons I can see not using a point system. Although in my campaign players would always try for the best weapon they could get because there wasn't any downside to a roll of the dice and it made feel sort of like gambling with other peoples money. "Rolling for the best quality tau rifle,Now I'm rolling for a best quality power armor, Rolling for the holy best quality force blade" there should be limits on things. I eventually made it so that they had to do mini adventures if they wanted high quality items.

I've never seen the acquisition of personal items to be that influential in a game. Sure, every player wants lots of toys, but players that think at the Rogue Trader scale are dealing with the acquisition of ship components, or even entire ships. They aren't busying themselves with acquiring a Tau rifle as much as they are trying to acquire enough heavy weapons to outfit the dynasty's armsmen with sufficient heavy weaponry. They aren't as worried about that next implant as much as they are that shipment of Basilisks.

I'd like the see expenditure of PF (Influence) for the really big items (ships, space stations, etc.), but for the toys, just keep it a dice roll. After all, it's not about affording it. It's about being able to find it. And who does that anyway? That's what the hired help is for. Rogue Traders employ armies of secretaries, lawyers, accountants...and smugglers...for this very purpose. I'd also like to see a maintenance factor for ships, space stations, and colonies.

Seconded. As much as I can like flat "you got it!", and then hope to never have to think about it, again, the empires that the Rogue trader builds are erected on foundations that move, and supports that can be destroyed. Having the game keep track of growth, deterioration, and such of their assets, contacts, and what have you might be nice. As a second, it might be nice to have a PF system that, at least in a few spots, fleshes out parts of what that PF is, when you start. If your Profit Factor is supposed to represent so much stuff, it could help to know what some of it is, be it Scrooge McDuck's vault, filled with Thrones, a derelict ship, a trade route, some family treasure, or a web of contacts. When the players decide Money Is No Object, and decrease their Profit Factor, it would be nice to know what they are liquidating, and what choices they had to pick from, or in an auction setting, like say in Lure of the Expanse, if they are putting up some relic, or location, what did they have/know? I don't necessarily want a spreadsheet, ledger, and diagram of countless minutia that comprise the wealth, but some concrete info on what it might be would be great. Especially when your game is new, and so is your Warrant; you are said to have say a starting PF of 40. That's a lot, and you might not have had it before, depending on if you were a soldier, an officer, a lucky gambler, or what. What did the Imperium foist upon you, like all the wealth of a world, along with a functional voidship?

This might sound dumb, and I'll apologize for that, but if you ever played Birthright, a sheet/system for monitoring your dynasty, however that might work, could be nice. You have a character, and the book says your ship can be thought of as like another character, but the group has so much more, with holdings, armies, other vessels, etc. Birthright, at least sort of, was like a little Civilization © game, where you built characters, like other D&D stuff, but you also built a kingdom, and did stuff with it, and other lands. You could collect resources, erect structures, wage battles, and the aura of your blood swelled through these things, as you were the descendants of divine heroes. Your victories increased your blood's supernatural strength, and also augmented your land, while losing to enemies, and losing holdings, people, whatnot, diminished your might. It was like D&D with a mandatory empire-builder component, and like their gods' powers grew, as their followers multiplied, and prospered, so did your powers and prestige. While most Rogue Traders aren't pulling an Emperor, and being strengthened by the essence of their people, a more dynasty-monitoring mechanic, but one the book fabricates, rather than the homebrew of a group, could be cool, as you mark the worlds you have stake in, the stations you own, the places your contacts are based, and collect these resources to acquire more, ever growing your kingdom. Of course, this might not be as easy as I'm making it sound, but something of that bent could be nice.

As a last, maybe try to balance more equipment out. I've gone through more than a few threads here where people will tell you the cherry picks among weapons, ships, and components, and maybe make you feel slightly stupid for not also picking that, when it is so obviously the right choice. We have MANY choices, but I think more of them should have more appeal given, while some of the cherries should be made that little bit harder to get. Give me a reason to take a warp drive that ISN'T the Milosav, that isn't pure fluff ("it's cursed, and possibly heretical", you say to the one granted cart blanche to basically xenos up their flying Mechanicus temples, while dancing with Eldar, and hiring Kroot to scout the planets they discover.) or something. Make the other options seem equally appealing, even if only at first. Give me a capacity to use diversity, and enjoy the build, rather than have me say "well, I should take this one, but I'll take this other one just because, and because it isn't frequently taken."

I could see PF being separated into categories, with each category bleeding over into others. They could include liquid capital, investments or holdings, political influence, contacts, allies, etc., and even those could be further refined between such sub-categories as Political Influence-Governor of Belknap IV, or Contacts-Cold Trade (Mist Fleet), or what have you. They'd still all add up to a single overall influence (PF) but apply bonuses to some actions while applying penalties to other actions. Some people might like that added complexity, as long as it didn't take too much record-keeping and still fit handily onto a character sheet, or maybe dynasty sheet. In fact, that might be a way for the non-Warrant Holders to bring more to the table and feel more like a stakes-holder in the Dynasty.

And yes, Venkelos, more attention needs to be paid to the details of equipment, particularly starships and their components. Sci-fi games are at least as much about gear as they are about stats and skills, often more, and it detracts from the game when the mechanics are so bad that there aren't any real choices save good and bad ones (mechanically speaking). Power creep is institutionalized in RPG splatbooks, and it can be nipped in the bud with some previous consideration to the growth of a game. Each component has a plus and a minus, or maybe two or three, but there needs to be an interesting decision to be made.

If your Profit Factor is supposed to represent so much stuff, it could help to know what some of it is, be it Scrooge McDuck's vault, filled with Thrones, a derelict ship, a trade route, some family treasure, or a web of contacts. When the players decide Money Is No Object, and decrease their Profit Factor, it would be nice to know what they are liquidating, and what choices they had to pick from, or in an auction setting, like say in Lure of the Expanse, if they are putting up some relic, or location, what did they have/know?

This is all information that the players should decide - and if not them, the GM.

Perhaps it's a case of "diff'rent strokes" but one of the strengths of RT as far as I'm concerned is the lack of concrete detail. The best RPing experiences I've had have come out of players thinking about this sort of thing and defining it to the GM rather than simply reading off a table. As a GM I want the game to go like this:

Player: "I'll burn the PF."

GM: "Okay, what does that represent?"

Player: "Hmm, perhaps I had a couple of connections in an organisation this person's working against, I'll offer them up to him; the loss of PF represents that I won't be able to risk drawing on them at the same time as him, so I won't benefit from their info."

And I support that, except when it calls on you to have some connections, or a precious relic, and that thing never came up before. It's one thing to have a magic mcguffin, but to have a pocket that just produces them, on demand? For the most part, I also like the vagaries, compared to a spreadsheet of pages of loot you have, on sixteen worlds, three ships, and then the interconnecting minions that make this web work; I just like the idea of having some of them be a known element, rather than a convenient "wait, how did this get in my pocket?"

As I've said before, part of it is, to me, that the game builds your character as a starter, more than the sixteenth trader to hold your Warrant (I am aware that this is not always the case, especially with Into the Storm, but if you were just using the main book to start a game), and when you start with a ship, and a PF of 40, I have no idea what that "wealth worth more than a Planetary Governor can wield" might be, and how the Imperium just set it at your feet, and hoped for the best. If you just finished the core's adventure, and were starting Lure, because your new GM isn't so keen on building their own module, yet, you'll need a mcguffin to give the Seven Sisters. What is it? Where did you get it? Why hasn't it come up before? Like you said, it might just be different wants from the same thing, and like I said, I usually DO prefer the vagaries; I have fleshed out most of three Rogue Traders, and part of a fourth, for my little story project, and I agree wholeheartedly that I don't want to sit there, and figure out every Throne, relic, madame, and merchant each of them has, so I won't, but... One does suppose that, just like the CEO of a real company, the RT doesn't know every nuance of what all of his dynasty is doing, all the time, so the Seneschal COULD say "one of your brother's people did recently acquire some stakes in that adamanium venture; sorry, I didn't get the chance to tell you, before we got into this. I suppose we could use part of that." The RT would just go "yeah, my money and reach wins again!" and all would be well, if he could have a way to make that end of a line usable by their current conundrum (the Internet would help, again, but they don't have that.)

My response to that is kind of in two parts. Firstly, with regards to "why hasn't it come up before?": the same question could be applied to my example. It hasn't come up before because it hasn't been relevant, for the same reason that the sixteen hundred other things that contribute to your PF haven't come up but may do in the future (because it would take too long to list everything); or it hasn't come up before because your factors only recently negotiated the contract, or because your agents only recently recruited the people (as you suggest); or it hasn't come up before because the deeds to the property or the contract for the safety deposit box or the chart for the warp route was buried somewhere in your dynasty's archives (given how much paperwork English aristocrats have built up over only a thousand years or so this is extremely believable). The other thing is that the same question can apply to, say, pre-existing contacts, or character knowledge only 'discovered' through a roll of the dice. I'd expect my players to detail some of their characters' connections - families, friends, colleagues, subordinates - before we play, and that goes double for the Rogue Trader. It's a Career that gives the player great power (and we all know what that comes with) so I'd want him/her to flesh out the major areas of their dynasty's interests and investments, the locations of major holdings, the specialities of their major factors and agents and so on.

Secondly, I wouldn't allow a 'new warrant'-holder to have a PF of 40, or anything much at all. Even being an Imperial noble beforehand only gets you a +1 to your starting PF. I don't agree with the 'balanced' SP:PF table from the Core book, or even the limitations imposed by the Warrant Path from ItS; the SP and PF available to a starting group should be tailored to the type of game desired. Want to play a brand-new RT with a rickety old transport, a la Firefly? SP of 25-30 and a PF of <5, which will focus the game on social skills, wheeling and dealing, and a repair-over-replace mentality. Want to play the four-hundred-and-seventh holder of a mighty warrant, with the power and resources to carve out a physical empire in the Expanse? PF and SP of 90 (or for flavour a ship worth 90 SP, but they only get to choose what <20 of them are spent on) which will cater to both the most excessive munchkins and those who want a game of high-level political manoeuvring and intrigue without having to worry about shiny toys.

As for the last bit in your post, I think we use PF in different ways. In my games, if an RT wanted some adamantium for use immediately he'd just buy some adamantium; the fact that he has stakes in an adamantium mining venture would only become relevant if a) he needed vast amounts for, say, founding a colony or b) if that interest came under attack. Otherwise it would just be a flow of Thrones into their coffers, or at most stock to trade, either bartered directly or liquidated to generate cash.

The biggest problem I can forsee with a detailed PF system is that it's likely that a starting PF of 37 would require a 37-line description, complete with mechanics for each and every one of those 37 entries. And, if the rules were written in such a way that (for example) a trade route the Dynasty has rights to was worth 6 PF (or any other number) then that would set a precedent that trade routes can be worth an awful lot of PF, and that has ramifications for the events of the campaign. Still, I have to say I like the idea of a more detailed PF.

Oh, more than 37, surely. I don't see 1 PF as any kind of minimum contributing factor - I envisage your wealth to be made up of 0.3 PF + 0.01 PF + 0.52 PF, and so on. Things that are below the notice of a Rogue Trader.

I'd rather increase the points than do tenths and hundredths.

Errant Knight, have you seen the Chapter Creation system in Death Watch? I think that FFG could make a decent table to detail pf.

I'm trying to think of all the big ticket items that PF would be used for. Colony building, Expeditions, Ships, Ship Parts, Ship Repair, Crew, Crew Morale, Communication (Astropaths cost), Land holdings, Cost of landholding (Yes I maintain a palace on Desoleum), Political influence, Factories, factory upgrades, holdings defense (I maintain a pdf and an sdf at my colony), Space stations, space station parts/repair, Treaties (I pay the eldar to ignore my colony), Fines, Access to markets/crossing territories, Keeping up appearances (Why yes my palace is floating on an anti-grav generator, isn't it quaint), Schemes (I am converting tau tech to look like imperial tech), raw material (factory requires 5pf of material to make 20pf of tau tech/imperial looking las guns), spy network, favors (why yes the mechanicum does have a new defense laser, but we aren't putting it on anything but navy ships yet), tithes. Let me know if you can think of more (and costs/profits).

Also, is there a reputation/influence/notoriety system in RT, its been so long I can't remember.

Egads! That amount of detail is exactly what I'd like to avoid in my own campaigns. That's what I like about the Misfortune Table. I can generate something about their holdings and require them to intervene or lose some PF without quite that detail beforehand. In fact, now that you put it that way, instead of detailing what makes up PF, just give some modifiers to each Dynasty and leave the details to the GM (e.g. the Johnstone Dynasty is wrapped up in the Cold Trade and all dealings with those merchants are at +8 PF, or the Melchior Cynasty has close ties to the Departmento and thus has +6 to PF when making military purchases of Imperial Guard equipment, etc.).

Now don't get me wrong. I would like some harder numbers. Colonies require maintenance until they become self-sufficient. After that they add to PF. But they don't start granting PF the moment they are laid down, like Stars of Inequity has it. Space stations are expensive to acquire, transport, and assemble, but after that they generate PF (assuming they orbit a planet worthy of a space station (for this purpose I like space stations to be local PF multipliers...that way PF 0 x 2 = PF 0, while PF 2 x 2 = PF 4). Manufactorums are likewise expensive to acquire, transport, and assemble but they act as local PF adders. I found Stars of Inequity 's mining rules sparse and inadequate, and possible trade goods for trade routes was entirely absent.

I could go on for a long time about all this, but the gist of the tale is that this system needs some serious retooling.

And reputation/influence/notoriety is all part of PF.

Rad is heading toward the right fixes, but I'd suggest a different approach. I, too, like the PF (Influence) system. The only part that's broken is the bonus AP ship components, and those can be reasonably worked out. Endeavors being the heart of the game, more space should have been dedicated to it. Examples should have been more numerous and much more clear, with common objectives, and even a random table or two (or six).

I also have no problem with the size scale. In fact, I rather like it. There are parts of ship that nobody has seen in decades, hidey-holes where hullghasts creep. Some of the ship components need re-thinking, though. Librariums, or other similar extras shouldn't require a fourth of the energy and/or space a macrobattery needs, they should just be hard to acquire. The play balance of these items should be handled by individual GMs, not adjudicated through the rules. In the end, some of our GMs are going to throw game-balance out the door anyway, or never consider it in the first place.

There are so many extra ship components that could have been added. This adds to variety without additional complexity, and that's always desireable. Interesting choices is at the heart of roleplaying.

You're sort of on the same track I was. Except the bit about ship size. Consider the following: In BFG, it was stated that an escort class ship (A Frigate or raider in RT) could only support a couple of squads of Space Marines. This would suggest a ship more in line with the Mass effect's Normandy rather than something the size of A Star Destroyer! Conversely, Said destroyer is said to Routinely support a compliment of approximately 10,000 Stormtroopers! Even assuming that Astartes require a lot more support facilities than standard troops, it's not that much! Additionally, as you said, facilities like librariums and Medicae facilities are out of proportion to what their size would be.

As to the hidden areas; Have you ever seen an Aircraft Carrier or maybe an old Battleship museum? There's an old urban legend that the USS Nimitz found an entire Machine shop in the yards because the door had not been cut in the Bulkhead during construction! My point is, even in a ship as "small" as an escort, there are plenty of hidey holes and hidden secrets to explore. Even using the method I suggested, an actual cruiser would be over a mile long! You think that wouldn't be big enough?

It's been some time since I've read BFG. I don't recall an escort being able to "support" a couple squads as much as that's all the marines they'd have to spare for an escort-sized ship, but I could definitely be remembering incorrectly. That might just mean that space marines are more rare and in-demand than the ships they're on. The idea that any of these ships could only support a couple squads, or that a strike cruiser could support a single company is rather preposterous, even if they do rely on expendable ammo cartridges instead of energy weapons with power packs. Now maybe if each ship was carrying an armory full of Predators, Razorbacks, Thunderhawks, and all sorts of weaponry to customize them for any mission, that would make more sense, but still...

And yes, I'm very aware of the size of a carrier or battleship, having been on several in my life. I remember getting lost on the USS Alabama on Deck 28 (I distinctly remember that sign). Still, I admit I just like the "feel" of the ridiculously sized ships in the genre. That's just a matter of taste, though, and really doesn't need to be part of any canon. After all FFG bothered to put cruise speeds and maximum acceleration on all the ships in their books and I disregard them completely as completely crazy. Those high G's and the fiction-based travel times don't jive. It's wasted print space. Time could have been better spent on something else.

In short, I don't think it's nearly as important to consider size as it is to consider Endeavors. If personal critical hits deserve a dozen tables, then Endeavors deserve an even score of them...or that's what I'd like more of in a 2.0 version. Size is important only as a ratio of how much space is taken by certain systems in a ship. Actual size is more of a personal preference. Your mileage may vary.

There we agree! One of the first things I mentioned was the idea that the endeavor system was somewhat clunky. I understand what they were trying to do though: The designers did not want Profit factor to be handed out randomly like experience (Or now: Influence) because it represents a MASSIVE wealth change in even a couple of points. We agree that the achievement point system would have to be cleaned up some though! It is interesting to note though, that AP are often used in the system to represent large sums of "petty cash" on hand that the RT may have access to. One example is using them to pay bonuses to crew whose morale is flagging!

As to the size issue: we partially agree: The problem is that in an RPG the designers need much more granular definition than in a wargame. For example: There are accepted conventions of how many troops a Barracks component holds but no where in the rules do they deal with this. Further, what additional facilities do these components include? Using the Barracks example: It is commonly accepted within our community that a Barracks component can support approximately one regiment of troops. But, the rules in BFK state that a regiment can be anywhere from 5000 to 20,000 troops depending on type! So which is it? Is it dependent on the base hull of the vessel? Does the barracks include support facilities like machine shops, Galleys, Armories and training facilities? If not, why not just stuff your regiment into a cargo hold? (As was routinely the case with the Tanith first and only.) Questions like these commonly arise among Gm's and veteran gamers. Also, the crew sizes as given represent a virtually inexhaustible army on even the smallest vessels! This just doesn't make sense if you want your players to be involved with adventures themselves! If my frigate has a 20000 man+ crew, why would I ever leave my ship to do anything?

In order to rectify this I propose the following:

A.) The dimensions of the vessels should be converted equivalent size in feet rather than Km. Thus a sword class frigate would be 1600 ft. (488m.) long 300ft. (91m.) abeam at the fins. This makes it roughly 2.3 times the size of the above mentioned USS Alabama! Given that the Sword is considered a relatively small vessel in 40k I think they've got ridiculous size covered

B.) Reduce the crew size by a factor of ten. Thus, in our example, a Sword frigate would have a crew of 2600 (assuming no Servitors). Given one of the few "Granular" stats we have from ITS, This would give the players a force of 130-260 trained Armsmen. While this is a significant force in Role playing terms, It is not full blown army! Coincidently, This makes a Sword class frigate much more efficient than the Above mentioned Battleship (Whose crew compliment was 1793). Bearing in mind that the Sword is twice her size, that's pretty good!

C.) Some components need to be a bit more clearly defined as to what they do. For example: Barracks; A barracks component supports military endeavors by providing for the upkeep of a Full standard imperial line regiment (Approx. 5000 troops). A barracks component includes Sleeping facilities (From which it takes it's name), Armories, and Galleys (Food service) for all embarked troops. Additionally, a Barracks component contains training facilities (Shooting ranges, Simulators etc.) for maintaining the soldiers 'edge' during longer voyages. A Barrack component may only be mounted in a transport, light cruiser or larger sized hull.

I respect your desire for a more compact game unit (the ship), and it's not that I actually disagree with it as much as I've grown used to, and compensated for the larger variety. Yes, it's hard to get the players to want to check things out personally when they have thousands of armsmen that can easily do it for them. But, those armsmen have sub-par skills and often screw things up without proper supervision. I've changed my GM style to fit the larger scale. I don't create dungeon-crawls for my players. They would just send in the hired help anyway. I don't think cutting their armsmen to hundreds instead of thousands would really change this. If I make my scenarios more like The Frozen Reaches and less like Lure of the Expanse then I find my players more involved with their characters.

With the changes I've implemented over the past few campaigns I find the characters classes, as drawn, become less useful. I see my Explorators and Navigators buy up increases in Agility (expensive) so they can more effectively modify the ship with Trade (Armorer or Shipwright) or draw star charts with Trade (Astrography). I see many of the players buying up Elite Advances in knowledge skills since they find those more useful, and the powerful and expensive combat skills less useful. I do still try to present opportunities for the players to use their standard skill-sets (e.g. the Rogue Trader fighting a duel), but I just as often see them opt out of those opportunities.

We are now a dozen sessions into our newest campaign (we only play bi-weekly) and so far the players have been in exactly 1 firefight, and now two of the players (Navigator and Astropath) avoid landing parties because they don't see their characters as useful in those situations. They have, however, participated in 2 pitched battles and will probably be in their 3rd one next session, and they've also had 1 starship combat. They seem to prefer the macro approach over the micro, but maybe that's just the players I have. And I bring this up because your issue with a large ship seems to really be an issue with the large crew. That large crew is essential if you have thousands of enemy combatants and I don't throw Orks at my players in the tens and hundreds. And the Barracks doesn't ameliorate that much with a regiment.

Speaking of the regiment, FFG seeemed to only consider the effect of a Barracks on boarding actions, and really didn't give much thought to the land campaigns a Rogue Trader Dynasty might participate in. BFK only muddied the waters more with a detailed and (to me) overly complex method of campaign adjudication. But (again this is just my experience) players seem to want to engage in massed combats on the surface, conquer entire planets, exterminate xenos-colonies, and otherwise use that Barracks component as anything except an instrument of boarding actions.

And I also respect your desire for a larger crew. I just want it to make sense! (As much as it can in 40k!). Remember that under my proposal above, a cruiser would still have a crew of 8500. That's quite a few!

Your comment on the Barracks and boarding actions further illustrate my point. Components need to be better defined rather than just giving an AP award. E.G. How many troops ina barracks? What else does it do?

The reason I keep siting the frigate in my examples is that in BFG lore it is a small vessel. The fluff strongly suggests (but does not explicitly state) a crew of hundreds rather than thousands. I'm really not that wedded to the idea of smaller vs. larger crews. But what I do want is to be able to define what the various vessels are actually capable of. I also want that information to basically jive with what GW published in BFG (which is about as close to "Canon" as you can get!). With that in mind; Escort class vessels (Frigates and raiders) were basically gunships without a lot of secondary capabilities. The RT vessels in BFG were Cruiser class vessels (Basically the Conquest class Star Galleon in BFK) with extensive secondary non-combat functions. After all; they were Exploration vessels rather than pure warships! I don't want to disallow the large sweeping campaigns many groups like to run, I just want the option for a smaller game if a given group wants it. Most of those grand campaigns I've heard of are running from a cruiser class hull or larger anyway so this kind of supports my thesis!