Ranks will beable to use the following enemy lists:
| CODE |
Defend Support Enemy Captain: Own Aff None None Major Own Aff Own Aff PIR Commander Allied Aff Own Aff + Allied AFF PIR + Own Posted Wing Commander ALL Own Aff + Allied AFF PIR + Own Posted Commadore ALL ALL PIR + Own Posted + Ally Posted Adirmal ALL ALL ALL |
Having active lists will modify the crew cost per week as follows
| CODE |
Affiliation Positions Posted Enemy +100% +40% +50% Support +20% +10% Defend +10% +5% |
The cost is not cumulative, haveing 2 AFF enemies, 2 Support AFFs and 1 Defend AFF will cost +100% (the maximum). The cost is to reflect the danger money paid to troops for being on active duty.
Also when danger money is paid, it most be paided for at least 1 month after 'active duty' has started. Clearing lists will also reduce the time until the next crew shore is necessary
Where do the enemy/support/defend of individual positions fall in terms of the first part of the suggested mechanics? The support/defend mainly start with "Own Aff" do you mean your own aff as a whole and individual positions within your aff can be supported/defended from that point onwards?
I think that supporting your own aff should come at a lower rank that putting your own aff's posted list on your enemy list. Otherwise there is no need for the "Major" rank; any fleet that wishes to make offensive actions would have to have all ships at Commander or above, and any that is purely defensive should have no need for more than Captain.
I would change Major to include Support Own Aff, but leave the other ranks the same. This would allow the option of having small fleets where one Commander has the enemy lists, supported by a number of Majors. Otherwise the Commander becomes the new "super-rank" that everybody needs all warships to be.
Richard
AFT
| QUOTE |
| I would change Major to include Support Own Aff, but leave the other ranks the same |
Agreed and changed.
| QUOTE |
| Where do the enemy/support/defend of individual positions fall in terms of the first part of the suggested mechanics? The support/defend mainly start with "Own Aff" do you mean your own aff as a whole and individual positions within your aff can be supported/defended from that point onwards? |
Yes - if you can enemy/support/defend your aff then you can add induvidual positions from that aff.
Support:
Major Own Aff
Commander Own Aff + Allied AFF
Wing Commander Allied AFF
I think there is an error here, shouldn't commander just be one or the other (with the assumption that 'allied aff' includes 'own aff' as well)?
rob
Captain
Lt. Commander
Commander
Wing Commander
Commadore (sp)
Admiral
I guess what disturbes me about it is it seems so Army as compared to a Naval rank
ttfn
larry
| QUOTE (Guest @ Jun 17 2003, 12:50 AM) |
| I agree with most of it, but find the usage of a Major wrong somehow. Maybe change to ... Captain Lt. Commander Commander Wing Commander Commadore (sp) Admiral I guess what disturbes me about it is it seems so Army as compared to a Naval rank ttfn larry |
Nah, the ranks really should be something like:
Lt. Commander
Commander
Captain
Commodore
Admiral
Star Admiral
| QUOTE |
| Captain Lt. Commander Commander Wing Commander Commadore (sp) Admiral |
I agree that Major doesn't sound right, and if we're being picky, both the UK and US navy put Captain above Commander.
It also occurs that the current rank 'Captain' can do very little, and therefore a better title might be 'Ensign' or 'Lieutenant'.
So, incorporating all ideas thus far:
Ensign
Commander
Captain
Commodore
Vice Admiral
Star Admiral
rob
IMP had new ranks names before the order existed to change them.... other people are less bothered.
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Jun 17 2003, 11:30 AM) |
| First of all you can change the ranks per affiliation. Second its a mix of airforce/navy ranks so its can not be 'right'. Essentially they are place holders and have no effect on the game but changing them would only confuse things further. IMP had new ranks names before the order existed to change them.... other people are less bothered. |
The point isn't that they can't be changed per affiliation, I'm sure most of us are aware of this nice feature. The point is that the list of standard ranks doesn't make a lot of sense. For I don't know how many decades now it's been a staple of science fiction and especially space opera that starship officer ranks are derived from Naval ranks not Air Force or some wierd mismatch like Phoenix has now and last time I checked Phoenix is a sci-fi game and I suspect most players would expect to honor and use certain staples from sci-fi literature (I know I did - the default ranks you have just stick in my craw as wrong).
Kerry
| QUOTE |
| (I know I did - the default ranks you have just stick in my craw as wrong). |
Thats prob why i said they are not 'right'.
Unfortunatly time is generally an issue and until now noone has kind of taken the time to mention it. I'm just not sure that changing it would a good idea from the point of view of rule books - since i have not even read cos i do not have the time. Its only a few lines to change in the code but rule books are another issue.
Also all of this discussion is off the topic of the poll, if you want to discuss this further open a topic in the 'Questions'.
e.g. if you have A, B and C - A is Captain, B is Commander and C is own aff's posted enemy.
Would A be able to support B atacking C even though A would not be able to attack C directly (or couldn't have it on its enemy list anyway)?
I think it should, as this is kind of the whole concept of rank. Higher ranks can make more decisions/have more authority, lower ranks follower their superiors.
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Jun 16 2003, 06:42 PM) |
| There will be no cost for creating or maintain rank. |
If there is no cost for creating or maintaining rank, then there is no point having any rank other than the top one - other than a means of limiting what your players can do! If it costs you nothing extra but gives you more flexibility, pretty much all the warships will end up as admirals....well Tyrant's Eye's in my case
| QUOTE |
| If there is no cost for creating or maintaining rank, then there is no point having any rank other than the top one - other than a means of limiting what your players can do! |
Thats correct and that the idea. It allows rank structure if you want it, but its not enforced.
See: "Changes To Rank Structure"
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Jun 16 2003, 07:42 PM) | ||||
| There will be no cost for creating or maintain rank. Ranks will beable to use the following enemy lists:
Having active lists will modify the crew cost per week as follows
The cost is not cumulative, haveing 2 AFF enemies, 2 Support AFFs and 1 Defend AFF will cost +100% (the maximum). The cost is to reflect the danger money paid to troops for being on active duty. Also when danger money is paid, it most be paided for at least 1 month after 'active duty' has started. Clearing lists will also reduce the time until the next crew shore is necessary |
THis looks really good idea, has it been implemented ???? I would like to implement it now.
regards
Nigel
Though it does solve some problems, it turns running warships a unreal situation!
Even the most rookie captain will support the rest of the fleet in any engagement. Don't you think it's stupid to see the Admiral flagship doing all the fighting while the destroyer escort captains cross their arms, just because they're merely captains?
I'd hate to see war fleets running around with too many higher up brass! And commodores are capable war commanders, capable of executing all actions admirals can...at least on several European navies, though maybe the US and UK are an exception???
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jul 18 2003, 09:59 AM) |
| Well once again I say I hate it! Though it does solve some problems, it turns running warships a unreal situation! Even the most rookie captain will support the rest of the fleet in any engagement. Don't you think it's stupid to see the Admiral flagship doing all the fighting while the destroyer escort captains cross their arms, just because they're merely captains? I'd hate to see war fleets running around with too many higher up brass! And commodores are capable war commanders, capable of executing all actions admirals can...at least on several European navies, though maybe the US and UK are an exception??? |
So set up your ranks such that the names go no higher than "commodore" within the game mechanics. Problem solved. Make and describe your rank structure such that it extends beyond that allowed for by the game system and role play the higher ranks.
I'd rather see more realistic scenario where captains can still be warship officers. Heck even the captain of a miserable 1 hulled warship should be able to offer hes support in a battle. People won't porbably ever use captains, because they can only defend. This creates the problem that in real life captains are the majority. And also I'd like to see exploration and merchant ships gain benefits from having officers
So name all your ranks "captain" and then make the right ship the right sort of captain.
I do see what you're getting at but if you want something that works for you it won't work for someone else. There are 3 options at the moment:
1) Leave things as they are
2) Change things to have has been proposed
3) Ask for a system where each aff can set what each rank can do in addition to what each rank is called.
Option 1 - no changes needed, no effort, no problem.
Option 2 - "minor" changes needed, David has proposed it so can prob. do it with little in the way of problems
Option 3 - Big reworking of the system for little benefit in the grand scheme of thing, would be down the list of jobs to do and might never happen. While waiting things stay as they are.
Take your pick.
I'm happy with things as they are but can live with changing to what's been proposed. I'd not like to see Option 3 as I don't think it will enhance the game to any great extent for the majority of players.
If you have any other proposals to "tweak" option 2 I'm sure we'd all like to hear them. If you have any other "options" to put forward that are not a variation on option 2 them shout up with them too.
| QUOTE |
| I'd rather see more realistic scenario where captains can still be warship officers. Heck even the captain of a miserable 1 hulled warship should be able to offer hes support in a battle. |
I believe that the rationale for these restrictions is one of game mechanics: it allows affs to decide which ships can initiate attacks, and which can't. Possibly some affs will want to restrict some ships (some players, really) to purely defensive roles.
An aff can change the names of its ranks, I believe. You could have the name 'Captain' at the level of Major, and promote all your ships to that rank. This doesn't cost you anything.
At the same time, I think that most affs will want all ships to be able to support the aff and to attack pirates. To save time issuing promotions, maybe it would be better if all new ships defaulted to that level.
Maybe add an 'Ensign' rank below 'Captain', and make affs demote new ships to that rank if desired.
In summary:
| CODE |
| Ensign: Own Aff None None Captain: Own Aff Own Aff PIR Major ? |
| QUOTE |
| And also I'd like to see exploration and merchant ships gain benefits from having officers |
I think that this is a separate issue. Do you mean that they should get a benefit from being assigned a higher rank, or from some 'experience' stat. (Not the current Experience rating, which David has explained is purely combat experience).
rob
The proposed change in the table is one of many and by expressing my opinion to it, I don't think I'm just pointing out Hive outlook on the rank structure.
Main point (and Rob that's what i was thinking as well) captains must be able to at least support its own, the pirate could be dropped to keep a slight difference to the majors.
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jul 18 2003, 11:49 AM) |
| I'd rather see more realistic scenario where captains can still be warship officers. ... And also I'd like to see exploration and merchant ships gain benefits from having officers |
Don't forget, rank has nothing to do with officers (in the game). (So we avoid further confusion :)
Perhaps this is another argument for moving the default names to ship-based rather than officer-based?
You could then also say that because the SHIP is only a "patrol class" (rank) {i.e. "Captain"}, the *computer systems* only allow it to attack/support/defend certain positions (as defined by its "rank").
You could say that your "flagship" rank ship could have a captain or an admiral in charge of it (which would be purely IC and a matter for internal aff politics/reward structures/role-playing), and they'd both get the same attack options (because it is the same SHIP).
"This ship is only authorised to support its own AFF."
(The term "rank" is probably a bit of a misnomer in how it is applied - but I can't think of anything better.)
The patrol ship, not the captain commanded ship, has in your view a programme that prohibits the crew to help your fellow more than patrol ships from blasting an enemy? Does that even make sense?
A warships is a warship, if it has weapons it will have clearance to defend (as it already has) and to provide support. Ok I can agree that a patrol doesn't have the clearance to start the war, by adding new enemies, but it will fire upon those already established as enemies.
Perhaps the best solution is having enemies lists being a political issue and not a patrol ship/admiral ,whatever as the list carrier.
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jul 18 2003, 02:53 PM) |
| prohibits the crew to help your fellow more than patrol ships from blasting an enemy? |
I think you may be misunderstanding support. If I can support anyone in my aff and Lee has you on my enemy list, then I can attack you via supporting Lee.
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jul 18 2003, 02:53 PM) |
| Ok I can agree that a patrol doesn't have the clearance to start the war, by adding new enemies, but it will fire upon those already established as enemies. |
Which was the point I was making. All ships can support/defend their own aff, but who can *initiate* an attack on whom is a different matter.
Lower ranks temporarily adopt the enemy list of any higher ranking position present in the same chain? (i.e location) (more or less).
If you put enemy lists onto politicals (although in theory this sounds reasonable as who you shoot is very much a political decision), you are effectively reducing options for free players even further, and complicating a system that tries to be simple (hence the inconsitencies).
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Jul 18 2003, 03:20 PM) |
| I think you may be misunderstanding support. If I can support anyone in my aff and Lee has you on my enemy list, then I can attack you via supporting Lee. |
I think the point Avatar is making is that even the lowest ranked ship should be able to support - but not initiate conflict.
Basically if you have gathered a fleet then the likelihood is that you are prepared for combat - and you generally wouldnt send a ship in if they were only going to wait around until they have someone to defend and thus lose the initiative.
Obviously you could promote everyone to Major - but to some extent that is red tape that for example could be the difference between a newly built ship that has been rushed to the combat zone firing on round 1 and round 2.
subject of Rank structure? Over a month ago, David suggested a new system where the
cost was based on active lists and you could asign rank for free. Since then I haven't seen anything mentioned to say what was decided (even though the over all vote was - for). Have I missed it in the SSS or was something discussed at the pub meet and resolved there (which I unfortunately couldn't make)?
Cheers
Jons - SMS