Action Groups and Engineers

[rcp27]

There are a couple of gameplay issues that have been niggling at me for a while, and I think this idea could be a good idea to resolve both of them.

The first aspect is that engineers seem to be a little bit lacking in a role. Fixing stuff is all well and good, but to me it has always felt a bit niche, and I have never really felt that an engineer is an indispensable part of the crew of a mission. The engineers could definitely do with a bit more of an active role in the actual flying of my missions. Consider a real world airliner. Before automation became viable in the early 1990s, most airliners had a dedicated flight engineer on board. His job was to do things like manage engines, or mange on board systems not related directly to the actual piloting of the aircraft.

Looking at the progression of building upgrades, limiting the size and part counts of vessels based on upgrades of the VAB and SPH is completely in keeping with the idea of what a bigger and more capable building can do. Consider how the change to SAS works, conceptually. If you want your spacecraft to hold a steady course, or to aim for a particular orbital vector, you need a pilot on board who can take the controls and make it happen. A more complicated challenge requires a more experienced pilot. Now consider action groups. Turning all the lights on together, deploying solar panels, or whatever, is a task that would be handled by a flight engineer. If you want to do something simple like turning lights on, an inexperienced flight engineer can do it. If you want to do something more complicated like changing engines over, opening or closing air intakes or whatever, you need a more experienced engineer.

A drawback of the current progression is building Mk2 type space planes. You can unlock Mk2 parts with the level 2 R&D centre. You can build a space plane big enough to need action groups to usefully fly it, using the Mk2 parts, in a level 2 SPH and launch it from a level 2 runway. You can't, however, create custom action groups to do this until you upgrade to the (really quite expensive) level 3 SPH. The Mk2 cockpits have two seats, so you could have one pilot and one engineer in it, or in the Mk2 command pod, you can have a pilot, an engineer and one other person, on board. It seems to me that linking action groups to engineers solves both of these problems: it makes action groups work in a more realistic way and gives engineers an actually useful role to play that reflects what a real-world flight engineer might do. Obviously having probe cores mimic the abilities of higher level engineers in the same way they do higher level pilots would be in keeping with this concept.

[Wabbit]

This is actually a great idea! Seeing as how the flight engineer sits at a console flipping switches and checking systems. It would be both accurate and enhancing of gameplay. Support!

[Alshain]

This would effectively destroy Mk1 SSTO's, at least those with more than one jet engine. You can't have a pilot and an engineer in a 1 man cockpit.

[rcp27]

This would effectively destroy Mk1 SSTO's, at least those with more than one jet engine. You can't have a pilot and an engineer in a 1 man cockpit.

You could either include a probe core to replace one of the two roles (and let's face it, if you are including a high degree of automation on your ship, then having a computer onboard to handle the task is realistic), or have a second, Mk1 inline cockpit behind the Mk1 nosecone cockpit to provide a tandem two-person crew.

[Alshain]

You could either include a probe core to replace one of the two roles (and let's face it, if you are including a high degree of automation on your ship, then having a computer onboard to handle the task is realistic), or have a second, Mk1 inline cockpit behind the Mk1 nosecone cockpit to provide a tandem two-person crew.

That doesn't answer the question, why should I have to do either of those? Lets take these points one at a time.

The inline Mk1 cockpit: it's heavy, it's ugly, it's costly, and even they made it look better it's still not always a desirable appearance.

Probe core: again ugly, heavy and costly

Realism: You're telling me a pilot can't flip a switch to shut off engines?

These are good design choices... key word: choices. People need to stop trying to pigeon hole us into their design ideals. I like to build my planes, not have a cookie cutter tell me how to build it. If I want to build a one manned aircraft I don't want some silly engineer restriction keeping me from doing that. If you implement this you might as well remove the Mk1 and just start with the Mk2.

[CocoDaPuf]

Yeah, I like this idea. It's a pretty clever solution to two otherwise pretty annoying problems - Engineers aren't terribly useful and you just don't get action groups until the end of the game (dumb if you ask me).

I think flying tandem or with a probe makes plenty of sense, it's a reasonable solution. In the end though, what it comes down to for me, is I just can't live without action groups for the majority of the career, it's not fun. There needs to be some way to get action groups sooner, and this is one route that could be taken.

Also, personally, I would say that the scientist and engineer experience paths aren't really useful now at all. For engineers, perhaps repairs should all be included in 1 level of engineer upgrades, because as it is, I've upgraded all the buildings, collected all the science I need and I still don't have an engineer that can fix a wheel (the only repair you're ever likely to need). Also, I don't feel like the kerbal scientists ever actually sped up my part unlocks in a meaningful way, so something needs tweaking there (but that's another topic).

[Scoundrel]

I like the idea behind the idea, unfortunately Alshain is correct. The proposal as it sits is impractical. I do believe a workable compromise could be achieved, such as having say the first 3 or 4 action groups not require an engineer. That way rudimentary action groups would allow single kerbal aircraft to switch between engines and mess with intakes and the like, and more complex setups (which would likely be 2+ kerbal vessels anyways) would require an engineer.

That said, there are many who simply use action groups for convenience rather than necessity, and requiring engineers would be a detriment to that. I think that engineers do need to have their role expanded, but perhaps not necessarily in this direction. I would propose engineers prevent catastrophic engine overheating and add PID control to fix excessive craft oscillation before I suggested they limit action groups.