It can not add a huge bonus as everyone would be admirals..... and it can not be too restrictive or that just causes masses of problesm from not undersatnding whats happening.
The only thing i can think of is some sort of bonus for ranks but based on the structure of the ranks not just on what rank you are ? ie if everyone is an admiral then there are no bonuses but if the structure is good then you get something better ?
Not sure any idea would be good.
May give you a few ideas!!
Using experience wold be good.
Gord
| QUOTE |
| Have a look at the Experience..use of.In the General Discussion section from a couple of months back. |
But rank has nothing to do with experience. While is a valid point that experience should be handled better it has nothing to do with rank.
Rank is an affiliation set thing, that can be given to anyone immediately. The affiliation can set ranks on officers now - i'm just wondering what to do with them ?
lots of admirals make a fleet act more defensively, lowering accuracy but increasing dodge.
lots of captains are more bullish and do the opposite
And the different ranks have other effects.
This affects the battle group overall (its the strategic thinking of the group, rather than individual tactics). So if the battle group had a high level of admirals, the fleet would be more defensive, if more captain then its bullish, etc.
An "average" would have to be worked out (1 admiral to 5 captains, or whatever) which would have a balanced fleet and no impact.
It means ranks present have an impact on battles, individual ship owners are affected by their allies in the battle and affiliations can (try to at least) load the dice in a particular strategy they prefer by being heavy on certain ranks.
so lots of admirals has an advantage over lots of ensigns in a battle.
lots of ensigns have an edge over lots of captains.
lots of captains has an edge over lots of admirals.
No one strategic is superior, just allows fleets to operate in different ways.
Mark
i.e. a squadron leader must be of an equal or higher rank than the rest of the officers in the squadron. Above so many ships you must have a certain rank.
rough example using captain, ensign, admiral (just because that's been used already)
1 captain can command up to 5 ships
1 ensign can command up to 5 captains
1 admiral can command up to 5 ensigns.
(obviously the numbers can change, but it becomes a rank structure then)
Where a naval ship is one with a naval officer. The theory stands that in a battle the commands come down the chain, never up.
This will not prevent you screening and defending civilian ships (obviously you cannot support them as they cannot initiate combat anyway).
It will also mean that an admiral will not put himself in danger defending or screening a lower ranking naval ship - simply because he is by his rank more important to the affiliation.
It does not prevent the ship having positions on his screen, support and defend lists, they will simply be used appropriately during a battle (ignored if innappropriate).
So if you are all admirals - the battle may degenerate into a farce as everybody follows their own agenda.
Result is that your squadron becomes a set piece with an admiral or higher ranking officer with chain of command allowing for promotion if someone dies.
Your convoy will have naval ships protecting the rest.
The introduction of squadrons should also introduce task force coordination efficiency.
Something like command centres on bases. If don't have an admiral on a large task force then it won't operate at peak efficiency.
But with a twist an Admiral commanding just 5 ships, where a simple comodore would do, would be overkill.
A squadron which loses its chain of command, would have a severe drop in battle coordination. A second in command, a vice-admiral if you will, would take over the command, but during one round the squadron would be uncoordinated.
More than two Admirals (rank 5) big penalty
Two Admirals (rank 5) smaller penalty
One Admiral(rank 5) and 1 Commadore (rank 4) no penalty.
One Admiral (rank 5) and more than one Commadore (rank 4) penalty
If all officers above Rank 3 are killed, penalties kick in again.
If all officers above Rank 2 are killed, penalties rise.
Geoff
Essentially if a battle fleet contains a tiered structure the fleet will fight better resulting in bonuses to targeting (better positioning of each ship) and fleeing (covering withdrawing ships).
The best bonus will arise when multiples of 31 ships are present 1:2:4:8:16 although percentage bonus will apply for partial structures. The best bonuses are given to those at the bottom of the tier.
This does not penalise the affiliation that wants a fleet of admirals as each ship will still perform as good as it is expected to, but does benefit the affiliation that co-ordinates its fleet actions.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Aug 20 2004, 01:45 PM) |
| The idea we have come up with grants a cascading bonus to a battlefleet based on rank structure present during the combat. Essentially if a battle fleet contains a tiered structure the fleet will fight better resulting in bonuses to targeting (better positioning of each ship) and fleeing (covering withdrawing ships). The best bonus will arise when multiples of 31 ships are present 1:2:4:8:16 although percentage bonus will apply for partial structures. The best bonuses are given to those at the bottom of the tier. This does not penalise the affiliation that wants a fleet of admirals as each ship will still perform as good as it is expected to, but does benefit the affiliation that co-ordinates its fleet actions. |
I like the ranks being given some structure and meaning in actual battle, but one problem with having it based on a rigid structure (1:2:4, etc) is that it penalises those with big ships. Someone with a 200 hull fleet (and bigger) is going to find it much harder to field fleets in multiples of 31 ships, than someone building 100 hullers.
I was also wondering how this would affect civilian (cargo type) ships? They dont (or cant? not sure which) have naval officers, so no structure bonus - so it makes them an easier target than already.
Just some thoughts
Mark
| QUOTE (Mandible @ Aug 20 2004, 03:43 PM) |
| I like the ranks being given some structure and meaning in actual battle, but one problem with having it based on a rigid structure (1:2:4, etc) is that it penalises those with big ships. Someone with a 200 hull fleet (and bigger) is going to find it much harder to field fleets in multiples of 31 ships, than someone building 100 hullers. |
I like Mica's idea but agree with Mark that there maybe problems. Even disregarding 200 and 100 hulled ships, 75 and 50 hullers also can have a larger advantage. I'm not sure whether this will make that much of a difference, but I guess people will feel discriminated against. Whether there should be an element of hulls built in I guess could be done.
Nik
This gives significant targeting benefits under the current rules.
Geoff
Do not forget:
A 200 hull ship has the benefit of much more available space as it only require one set of sensors/targeting computers/jump drive/bridge etc whereas four 50 hull ships all require these items! Also, as it has proportionally a smaller surface area, its shields and scint are more effective.
If a player decides that the extra bonus for fielding 31 ships is not worth as much of fielding 10 very large ships, then this is a player decision.
Finally each one of the smaller ships requires a $10k naval officer.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Aug 23 2004, 08:44 AM) |
| 31 ships was simply the upper limit, not a one-off benefit. Fielding 5 ships that are part of the pyramid structure still gains a marginal benefit. Do not forget: A 200 hull ship has the benefit of much more available space as it only require one set of sensors/targeting computers/jump drive/bridge etc whereas four 50 hull ships all require these items! Also, as it has proportionally a smaller surface area, its shields and scint are more effective. If a player decides that the extra bonus for fielding 31 ships is not worth as much of fielding 10 very large ships, then this is a player decision. Finally each one of the smaller ships requires a $10k naval officer. |
That makes more sense, is this for "fielding" 1 squadron?
What is the effect of 1 player fielding three squadrons of 16, for instance, are they treated seperately or as 1 group?
Next step up - more than one player fielding more than 1 squadron so an affiliation fleet has a dozen or so of 8 or 16 ship squadron's in it?
Geoff
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Aug 23 2004, 07:44 AM) |
| 31 ships was simply the upper limit, not a one-off benefit. Fielding 5 ships that are part of the pyramid structure still gains a marginal benefit. Do not forget: A 200 hull ship has the benefit of much more available space as it only require one set of sensors/targeting computers/jump drive/bridge etc whereas four 50 hull ships all require these items! Also, as it has proportionally a smaller surface area, its shields and scint are more effective. If a player decides that the extra bonus for fielding 31 ships is not worth as much of fielding 10 very large ships, then this is a player decision. Finally each one of the smaller ships requires a $10k naval officer. |
I was thinking, are there not 6 naval ranks? we have Captain, Major, Commander, Wing Commander, Commodore and Admiral. So would the maximum benefit be 1:2:4:8:16:32 ie 63 ships?
If so, could the "maximum benefit" achievable be scaled to the fleet size. If you have 7 ships in your fleet, you need the 1:2:4 structure, always from the lowest ranks (ie 1 Commander, 2 Majors, 4 Captains) to still get the maximum benefit. Any deviations from this would reduce the bonus (so having an admiral in charge of a small fleet is inefficient). This way, regardless of fleet size you can still get the maximum benefit - otherwise 31 (or 63) ships is always going to be the aim, if it gives a higher bonus than a small fleet and I thought the plan was to move away from uber fleets.
The advantages of the bigger ships (more efficient, proportionally smaller surface area) are already in place so its not really a counter-arguement for any new changes to ship structure - unless you believe the benefits are too high?
The planned cash cost of officers is a big negative to the smaller ships (and therefore an advantage to having big ships), so perhaps that is something that needs addressing?
Will the officers have a pension scheme (like any crew killed - which i think is 100 per crew member)? If so, any thoughts on how much this would be?
Mark
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Aug 23 2004, 08:44 AM) |
| 31 ships was simply the upper limit, not a one-off benefit. Fielding 5 ships that are part of the pyramid structure still gains a marginal benefit. Do not forget: A 200 hull ship has the benefit of much more available space as it only require one set of sensors/targeting computers/jump drive/bridge etc whereas four 50 hull ships all require these items! Also, as it has proportionally a smaller surface area, its shields and scint are more effective. If a player decides that the extra bonus for fielding 31 ships is not worth as much of fielding 10 very large ships, then this is a player decision. Finally each one of the smaller ships requires a $10k naval officer. |
Creating Naval Officers for 10k each is really excessive I believe. By the logic I see, (and oft times I'm very illogical <G>), a officer who can command a 10 hull vessel has as much skill as one who commands a 100, 200, 300.... hull ship.
If you're going to charge for each Officer, why not incorporate size into play:
0 - 20 hulls = 1 Naval officer required
21 - 40 hulls = 2....
41 - 60 hulls = 3....
I am not as well written as othes on this forum, but what do you think?
That's how I'd justify it.
Geoff
Then link that to the cost of creating the officer, one cost for the officer, another cost for creating a naval officer (less than 10K) then promotion charges for each rank. Probably also add in difference of wages.
Then add in a lowest rank needed for different ship sizes.
So a 50 hull ship doesn't have to the same rank (cost) officer as a 200 hull ship, but if they chose the lower cost officer, they get less "powers" (back to having to have an admiral for targetting, but what was wrong with that?)
This might go some way to the objections of same cost for smaller ships etc.
(Just trying to bring the various alternative ideas into one proposal).
Naval Officers for SUPPORT and ENEMY, sure (with possibly a rank difference between the two).
To be honest, even as an aff with 150 hulled ships, I can appreciate the point of those who think this is too much.
We're discussing the uses of rank in this thread - and so far the best idea does seem to be the pyramid structure. But should there be a second characteristic attached to a naval officer - for rating their ability to command larger shipsin combat? Any naval officer should be able to command any warship... but if he's not acquainted with a specific ship class he would not be able to use it's capability to best effect.
So you create an officer and convert it to a naval officer for a smaller amount (say $2,500). This initial training course familiarises him with the small size ships (1-50 hulls). To avoid a (small but significant) penalty for using the officer in a larger warship you would need
1.an academy (if we go back to that idea - some kind of advanced training facility in any case)
2. the right technology. Linked to the ship size principles and one of the racial design principle levels - advanced, state of the art or cutting edge as relevant for the ship size... one for each ship size category (per race, of course)
3. Time & money- perhaps there should be a weekly "conversion" that means that the officer can be ready after roughly 2-4 weeks with it costing $1,000 a week to train the officer
It might also be a good idea to make it necessary for the officer to go through each preceeding course before it can take the next - so to get a 200-hull rated officer you would need to put it through medium, large and huge courses, each costing $2-4k and 2-4 weeks.
So the small ship naval officers would cost $2.5k
medium somewhere between $4.5 and 6.5k
Large between $6.5k and $10.5k
Huge between $8.5k and $14.5k
not sure if the variability is a good idea or not - it could become a fixed price, or at least less variable
Not thought everything through but as an idea I think it's worth discussion/comment from a wider audience? The key difference is the rank and the ship size-rating separated
oh yes, you should ALWAYS be able to defend your own aff!
Dan
I believe, as they stand, the Naval officer rules are unfairly advantageous to fleets with big ships. Having only 10, 50 & 75 hull vessels available I would have to spend 2-3 times the amount of stellars in order to put the vessels into combat, that an 'equal' fleet consisting of say 150 hulled vessels would. This could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of stellars difference in officer costs, even in a relatively small engagement, merely to get the bulk of and inferior fleet into action. If this is the intention, so be it.
Also as it stands, there seems to be little role for non-navel officers, and no set advantage to increased rank. I propose the following: Forget the naval/non naval officer divide. An officer is required to invoke combat, as proposed. The cost, in thousands of stellars, for creating or promoting an officer is equal to the rank promoted to:
The current 1K 'create officer' order gets an officer capable of commanding a 25 hull ship.
A 2K promotion, to THAT officer, gets one capable of commanding a 50 hull ship.
A 3K promotion to THAT officer gets one capable of commanding a 100 hull ship.
A 4K promotion to THAT officer gets one capable of commanding a 150 hull ship.
etc.
Other bandings are of course possible. Using this, the adjustments would be cost neutral for the officers of 150-hulled vessels, as they would still cost 10K (1+2+3+4). It of course means that officering small ships is far cheaper than proposed, but given the far higher numbers of 10, or even 50 hulled, vessels needed to go up against larger ships, is fairer in my opinion. It would of course cost 5K more for each 200 hull ship officer, but I should imagine that the total fleet cost impact is still miniscule, compared to the value of a single one of those vessels.
Consider the effect I expect it would have on behaviour - more realistic I think: Officers would first be created to command the smallest class of ships, and be promoted with experience. And, if an officer could only be created/gain rank once per day, it might give a valid role for 'second in command' officers on larger ships, of equal or slightly lower rank to the vessel commander. More true to life than promoting a single undifferentiated crewman straight to command of the vessel.
I appreciate that, from the reactions on Yahoo, the current big ship controllers are going to hate this. But if the officer changes are introduced as outlined it means there will be negligable role for small ships in combat.
| QUOTE (TonyH @ Aug 30 2004, 10:23 AM) |
But if the officer changes are introduced as outlined it means there will be negligable role for small ships in combat. |
Unfortunately the smaller ship's role in combat will not diminish, it will only get a more expensive
.There seems to be a general trend towards the theory that bigger is better, the experience gained in over 20 days of battle since the conversion to Phoenix, involving in many cases over 80 ships, leads me to believe otherwise, there is a very definite role for the smaller ships and in sufficient numbers their disadvantagse are well outweighed by the advantages.
Geoff
Firstly I believe any ship, whither it has an officer of any style on board, or not should be able to defend its own affiliation.
Secondly small ships have a limited usage in combat, by their very nature. Therefore any officer commanding should be limited in his function. That should make him cheaper.
At this point I admit I have missed something, if you move officers does the experiance move as well, or does it stay with the ship? I hope it moves as this allows "career development".
The actual cost of the officer should be linked to his ability, not the ship he is on. One that can initiate combat "an Admiral" should cost significantly more than the officer who just "follows the flag".
At the end of the day though, it is what you do with our ships that is important, not their size or officer ability and so long as there is a good tie in between weekly running costs and ability it will shake itself out in the end.
To that end I am not really interested in how much it costs to create an officer, the joke is each and evey officer draws the same weekly wage, $5 and while that might be fair for the junior officer your admirals should be on nearer $500 a week.
PA
| QUOTE (HPSimms @ Aug 30 2004, 11:32 AM) |
| There seems to be a general trend towards the theory that bigger is better, the experience gained in over 20 days of battle since the conversion to Phoenix, involving in many cases over 80 ships, leads me to believe otherwise, there is a very definite role for the smaller ships and in sufficient numbers their disadvantagse are well outweighed by the advantages. |
Although I do not have the same combat experience as Geoff I also believe that small warships have a role to play, a very important one. Sure, large ships are large, but in many cases I would be happy to swap 1 large ship to 2 smaller (with the same total hull size).
Consider damage for example. If you have a small amount of large ships against a large amount of smaller ships (same total hull size). With the large ships you will probably need to repair the whole bunch as the all have recieved some level of damage. The smaller fleet on the other hand may have some ships with very large damage or destroyed. But they should also have some undamaged ships that can continue offensive actions right away.
I like ths discussion, but would prefer if the system was simple (as the suggested $10k cost and rank structure). I do not want a system where I must send each officer to school and graduate in several courses, depending on how large ships they shall command.
Please keep it simple and manageble.
| QUOTE |
| At this point I admit I have missed something, if you move officers does the experiance move as well, or does it stay with the ship? I hope it moves as this allows "career development". |
Experience moves with the officer.
One of my highly experienced officers had a SOL shot out from under him.He was picked up and now commands another ship with slightly more experience gained from being shot at!!
Of course numbers ra e just indicativeOfficers Proposal
Each aff has a ship size cap, so while a "primitive" culture might consider a 75 heavy huller a flagship, others use 100, 125, 150, etc.
However the standard I believe that commanding 50 broadswords is as difficult as battle coordinating 50 battleships, or even 50 baseships. However if a "primitive race" major is capable of using the full abbilities of ship larger than that race/aff abbilities is another matter, even if the ship is crewed by the correct racial crew. For every step of ship technology over that race/aff, another one is required in etrms of the officer.
Captains, would only give bonuses up to say 50 hulled ships, and could operate ships up to 100 hulls, but without any bonus. Plus, captains shouldn't be able to command more than their own ship.
Majors, would become the standard "captain" for 100 heavy hullers, or leaders of small groups of captains.
Commanders, right up to Admirals would be able to do the same thing as major does, but ever increasingly capable of handling more ships by their own.
At a set number of ships, (because the difficulty of commanding a fleet is keeping track of all the ships, not the size of them) each rank would max the nš of ships they coordenate and require the support of another officer, or a rank promotion to increase the max nš of ships he/she can coordenate at peak efficiency).
NOTE(x% bonus = rank bonus + officer experience)
For the top ranking ship, each race/AFF has developed:
Captain - <1/2 max hulls hulls; 100% efficiency x% bonus;
Captain - <max hulls; 100% efficiency; no bonus;
Major - <max hulls; 100% efficiency x% bonus;
if that race/aff max ship size is 100
Major - <125 hulls; 100% efficiency 0% bonus;
Commander - <125 hulls; 100% efficiency x% bonus;
Major - <150 hulls; 90% efficiency 0% bonus;
Commander - <125 hulls; 100% efficiency 0% bonus;
Wing Commander - - <125 hulls; 100% efficiency x% bonus;
=<5 ships
Major - 100% efficiency; no bonus;
all ranks above - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
Note: While a Major provides a combat bonus for his own ship, the remaining 4 ships don't benefit from his presence, other than a regular battle coordination
=<10 ships
Major - 75% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
all ranks above - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
Note: A task force of more than 10 ships, commanded by an Major, will see their joint efforts curtailed by the commanding officer experience. While he pays attantion to a part of the battle others are left unattended properly.
=<20 ships
Major - 50% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 100% efficiency; no bonus;
all ranks above - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
Note: A fleet of this size under the command of a major, will left mainly uncoordenated, leaving the individual crews left to their own devices. A commander will still be able to coordinate all ships, but the fleet size is too much for him/her to still give any bonus.
=<30 ships
Major - 45% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 75% efficiency; no bonus;
Wing Commander - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
all ranks above - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
Note: With a fleet this size the ships are fighting by their own, only those next to the flagship will still act as group. From this fleet size onwards the decrease in efficiency is the same, as the ships can't act less as a group as they do now.
Commanders are finding more than 30 ships under their command to be too much.
=<50 ships
Major - 50% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 65% efficiency; no bonus;
Wing Commander - 100% efficiency; 0% bonus;
all ranks above - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
Note: Commanders hit the same level as Majors do in =<30 ships, but manage to retain coordinated command of more ships than a Major.
Wing Commanders have reached their max number of ships they can coordinate effectively
=<75 ships
Major - 50% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 65% efficiency; no bonus;
Wing Commander - 75% efficiency; 0% bonus;
Commodore - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
all ranks above - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
Note: Wing Commanders are well over their heads coordinating more than 75 ships.
=<100 ships
Major - 50% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 65% efficiency; no bonus;
Wing Commander - 75% efficiency; 0% bonus;
Commodore - 100% efficiency; 0% bonus;
Admiral - 100% efficiency; x% bonus;
=<125 ships
Major - 50% efficiency; no bonus;
Commander - 65% efficiency; no bonus;
Wing Commander - 75% efficiency; 0% bonus;
Commodore - 85% efficiency; 0% bonus;
Admiral - 100% efficiency; 0% bonus;
>125 ships
Admiral - 90% efficiency; 0% bonus;
2 Admirals - 100% efficiency; 0% bonus;
Note: The joint command of 2 Admirals enables a fleet to operate at peak efficiency with fleets over 125 ships, but having 2 minds controlling the fleet forces the Admiral top mostly coordenate and can't offer bonuses to the fleet.
The presence of each Admiral, forces the existence of at least:
1 Commodore;
2 Wing Commanders;
4 Commanders;
8 Majors;
The presence of each Commodore, forces the existence of at least:
1 Wing Commanders;
2 Commanders;
4 Majors;
The presence of each Wing Commander, forces the existence of at least:
1 Commander;
2 Majors;
The presence of each Commander, forces the existence of at least:
2 Majors.
Assuming that at this time and age officers are nominated by abbilities, to reach the rank of Admiral means a life time dedication to the Navy and a considerable investment, though of course the benefits of rank allows for an easy life when not on duty.
Requirements:
Training for military Captain - 1k
Training for Major - 4k, total 5k
Training for Commander - 5k, total 10k
Training for Wing Commander - 5k, total 15k
Training for Commodore - 5k, total 20k
Training for Admiral - 10k, total 30k
Weekly Maintenance:
Captain - 5 stellars;
Major - 15 stellars;
Commander - 100 stellars;
Wing Commander - 250 stellars;
Commodore - 500 stellars;
Admiral - 1000 stellars.
- Rank determines the number of ship hulls that officer can command. Promoting an individual officer is costly but this will make naval officers who can command big ships much more expensive than naval officers who can command small ships.
- Experience stays as it is. The experience determines the bonus a naval officer will give to combat operations etc. and has nothing to do with rank - an affiliation may want to put its most experienced naval officers on the biggest ships, but the choice is entirely up to them.
- You can put an officer on a ship which is too big for him to "command". In this case, the ship is considered not to have a naval officer with regards to enemy list settings etc., and only a corresponding portion the officer's experience bonus applies to combat performance.
- Each rank allows to "command" more ship hulls:
Rank 0 - creation costs $ 1000, up to 16 hulls (Captain)
Rank 1 - promotion costs $ 2000, up to 32 hulls (Major)
Rank 2 - promotion costs $ 4000, up to 64 hulls (Commander)
Rank 3 - promotion costs $ 8000, up to 128 hulls (Wing Commander)
Rank 4 - promotion costs $ 16000, up to 256 hulls (Commodore)
Rank 5 - promotion costs $ 32000, up to 512 hulls (Admiral)
(If there can be ships over 512 hulls then simply shift the whole thing down one row, i.e. rank 0 starts at max. 32 hulls and rank 5 could be up to 1024 hulls. Even that threshold may be broken in a couple of years but David will have plenty of time to introduce more ranks by then.)
Promotion always assumes that the officer in question is promoted by only one step, as is the case now. This means turning a civilian officer into a Wing Commander would cost altogether 15000 stellars, regardless of wether it is done in a single step or gradually over time.
To keep it simple rank controls what you can add to the three lists, defend, support and enemy, nothing else.
The sting is in the cost of maintaining the rank, I said earlier 500 a week for an admiral, Avatar suggests 1000, no problem with either figure.
If there is a feeling that rank should be better controlled then I suggest you look at reintroducing the old BSE concept of you have to spend time in one rank before you are eligable for promotion, say a year at each rank.
While I am not convinced it is the right way, it is certainly a simple way, and at the end of the day I certainly want to keep it simple.
PA
I'm not overly concerned over the numbers, my concern is that ranks have some meaning. If people want to run around with just Admirals on their ships, fine! They'll just have to pay for that inverted piramid military structure.
The aff is small and can't use many top layer officers, that's fine as well, all officers should be able to defend and support and one slightly more superior officer will allow them to also attack.
As for the abbility of captains to "captain" a carrier...I would expect they would be able to, that's why the chain of command exists. The flight officer handles the fighter jocks, the deck officer handles the landings and take-offs, etc, etc, that's called crew!! Now, of course the 15 of so super carriers aren't run of the mill ships, so they usually have an Admiral pavillion in them, but if you go back to the WWI, where the Dreadnoughts were the main warship and they existed in numbers more similar to the Nebulons, Battleships, etc, we see used in Phoenix, then you'd realize that not all Dreadnoughts and pre-dreanoughts and the battle of Jutland had Admiral, commodores on them!
And agreeing with the esteemed DTR fellow, I'm concerned that a FEL/DEN/COH and even FGZ main warship fleet is restricted in terms of officers in relation to Human fleet, just because their ships are larger.
To a Dewiek, flying a Direwolf is just as hard and time consuming as Human in a Nebulon and the same can be said of a Baseship.
If the hull nš is used then we could see a "primitive" race use their top of the line 50 huller, in teams of 4, while the poor developed FGZ would have to use the same rank just to fly his own ship
i accept there will be changes to rank etc, but the one i cannot understand is why any officer naval or otherwise cannot defend.
if your in any of the forces, from cook, to accounts clerk to front line soldier, you are required to take up arms if the need arises.
i cannot see why for defend lists this should be the case for all warships, not just those with naval officers on.
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ Aug 31 2004, 09:49 AM) |
| sorry if this has already been said, theres a lot of stuff on here and i havent got the time to read it all. i accept there will be changes to rank etc, but the one i cannot understand is why any officer naval or otherwise cannot defend. if your in any of the forces, from cook, to accounts clerk to front line soldier, you are required to take up arms if the need arises. i cannot see why for defend lists this should be the case for all warships, not just those with naval officers on. |
A civilian officer simply does not have the clearence for this sort of action. For whatever reason, the powers that be have decided that they do not want this guy pulling a trigger (or giving the order for the trigger to be pulled) under any circumstance.
If an affiliation is stupendously daft enough to have a warship with this type of officer in control then..... they are stupendously daft.
"Permission to fire sir?"
"Negative crewman, we can't be sure it's a valid target."
"Are you an idiot sir? It's blowing up our freighter!"
"I don't have the training to ascertain that crewman."
"Do you have eyes? How are your ears? Perhaps you'd like to confer with Captain Smith before he dies?"
What are Civilian Officers for then? Do they have any purpose at all? Why not just have Naval Officers at 11K each instead of a pointless step in between?
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Aug 31 2004, 02:50 PM) |
| "Permission to fire sir?" "Negative crewman, we can't be sure it's a valid target." "Are you an idiot sir? It's blowing up our freighter!" "I don't have the training to ascertain that crewman." "Do you have eyes? How are your ears? Perhaps you'd like to confer with Captain Smith before he dies?" |
I suppose the responding political get fired due to incompetence by not having naval officers on warships doing escort duty.
If you have a warship you put a naval officer onboard, if you have a freighter you use a regular officer. If the ship is a little of both, well then you have a decision to make...
| QUOTE (kilanuman @ Aug 31 2004, 03:09 PM) |
| If you have a warship you put a naval officer onboard, if you have a freighter you use a regular officer. If the ship is a little of both, well then you have a decision to make... |
Well my point is kind of why bother putting a Civilian Officer on anything? Why not just save 1K and not put any Officers on any non-warships. Civilian Officers don't appear to add anything to the ship/game while still costing you 1K stellars.
Is there any point to Civilian Officers?
Although Defending your own positions should be much easier (and cheaper) than offensively attacking others. Allowing Civilian Officers to do this was just an idea to give them a role. If not use Civilian Officers that's fine, but Defend should be allowed at the lowest rank Naval Officer (which should be cheaper to create than the higher ranks).
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Aug 31 2004, 03:30 PM) |
| Is there any point to Civilian Officers? |
You have a very good point here.
I believe the use of experience have been discussed before, perhaps it is possible to add that experience for regular officers increase with time and give bonuses like faster installations and transactions (saving TUs).
Then, if you promote an experienced officer (exp +50% for example) to naval officer you will get 10% of his current experience (i.e. +5%) but as a naval officer with combat bonuses. Naval officers don't get experience with time but must fight for it.
| QUOTE |
| Although Defending your own positions should be much easier (and cheaper) than offensively attacking others |
Problem is that defend means 'Attack anyone who fires at who i am defending'. So all you have to do it send one ship in with an enemy list and although you lose 1 free round (that you usually get with a surprise attack) you still get all the ships to attack for free, which would defeat the object.
Thats one reason, the other main one is that 10k for all is simple. Complicated == very bad on something like this.
Why do you have none naval officers - cos it alllows them to be expanded and is seperate to the naval issue.
| QUOTE (Frabby @ Sep 1 2004, 08:01 AM) |
| Naval officers should be a bonus, not a requirement. What happens if the officer is killed in combat? Gives a wholly new dimension to targeting for lifeforms, but is that really what you want? |
Well, without needing academies you can just promote another Naval Officer on the battlefield as it were.
Still not entirely sure about this whole thing.
What is the reason for changing officers/ranks as they are now? Rank should be tied to Officers yes, but rank should should give increasinly more powers and cost increasingly more.
Yes I can understand the "defend to attack" scenario, but that's kind of how it works now. 1 top officer co-ordinating the attacks of many junior officers. What's actually wrong with the present system (with some minor tweaks of course)?
Why is the new Naval Officer change being introduced? What's the problem/perceived problem with officers as they are?
Simple is good, yes of course. Complicated, very bad, I agree. But overly simple I would say is also just as bad in some cases.
This seems to be the main, if not the only area of contention in the new changes, we are just trying to explore alternatives.
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Sep 1 2004, 07:09 AM) |
| What is the reason for changing officers/ranks as they are now? Rank should be tied to Officers yes, but rank should should give increasinly more powers and cost increasingly more. |
Essentially with diminishing ranks etc, there are often reasons why some of the fleet fail to engage. This is a real pain for those that have gone to the hassle of getting their butts into gear and travelled halfway across the Capellan Periphery.
Ask the FET who without fail attend every arranged battle and almost as often seem to be left in the foyer choosing sweets while the main event is on.
By having a simple - Naval/Civilian distinction players only have one thing to worry about without all the - make sure the he is supporting that and that that has this on its list and that in case it failed to scan this in the first place but also maybe a few redundant thems as well.... oh crap once again the fleet is shooting at everything or has simply not engaged.
| QUOTE (Frabby @ Sep 1 2004, 08:01 AM) |
| Naval officers should be a bonus, not a requirement. What happens if the officer is killed in combat? Gives a wholly new dimension to targeting for lifeforms, but is that really what you want? |
errr...thats a good point actually
if rank becomes attached to the Officer, and if a Naval Officer is required for a ship to be involved in a battle can ships carry multiple Officers in case of a lucky hit?
If a ships loses a Naval Officer midway through a battle - and has no replacement - does it disengage?
There is nothing preventing a player from promoting to officers during a battle. Obviously we can list officer casualties as part of the battle report.
| QUOTE |
| If a ships loses a Naval Officer midway through a battle - and has no replacement - does it disengage? |
Nothing in that battle. The lists of a ship without an officer are cleared, but not during the battle. Also the ships locked targets are not cleared until they have been destroyed/retargted or the battle has been left.
Its not trival to kill the officer, you would most likely have to kill most of the crew as well + battle bridges provide cover for crew etc.
| QUOTE |
| Why is the new Naval Officer change being introduced? What's the problem/perceived problem with officers as they are? |
Its because of the rank requirements for enemy/support/defend lists are being removed. Currently you have to promote ships to certain ranks to add enemies etc. Its very complicated, i can not remember off had what is required for what and it serves no real purpose.
If i left it how it was then most of the new targeting stuff would require ships to have the admiral rank to be useful and clearly thats crap and woudl cost 21k per ship under the old rules. So it was decided to cut the 'full rights' down to 10k per officer and not to complicate matters.
As for the complication - when you have 20 ships you are will forget which officers have defend rights/enemy rights etc. This will lead to battles being missed when order are issued to the squadron to add to enemy list and move to target (some ships will fail to add the enemy and so on). In the end the complication is not something you want when battles are involved.
I'm just a little worried I suppose that as things get simpler and clearer we start to lose "flavour" and become too overly simplified and "clinical" - lots of breadth, no real depth - no real meaning or "feeling" to things. I'm not saying it's like that now, but sometimes it takes more and more effort to try and suspend disbelief and immerse yourself in the setting. But that's probably just me (e.g. I'd still like to see racial differences/variations of some kind
But that's off topic so I'll leave this thread for others now
Thanks for the answers.
| QUOTE |
| I'm just a little worried I suppose that as things get simpler |
There are a fair few new orders and stuff in the space combat - if anything it has become a lot more complex. I don't want to make it too simple BUT i want to make it so you get what you ask for and know why. A big gripe has been that fleets turning up and then just watch the battle when they should be fighting. One price for all lists means that everyone can add to enemy lists and then make sure you get what you want (as only one ship might make the scan).
| QUOTE |
| although if some affs/players can't keep track of their ships/officers/ranks, then perhaps they have too many ships already and shouldn't be encouraged... |
It does not take many ships to make a right pigs ear of it. Its all down the the problem of not haveing the enemy list on each ship. Remember that you can now have all the enemy aff on you lists + some specific positions to check first. Thats also in there to prevent this messup of no enemy being found.
Officers need a little work, so i left the naval flag to the side to allow different officers to created later.
Rank is an affiliation created thing, there may be some rope in allowing bonus different ranks, and haveing a different number of these ranks open depending on the size of your fleet.
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Sep 2 2004, 10:18 AM) |
| Officers need a little work, so i left the naval flag to the side to allow different officers to created later. Rank is an affiliation created thing, there may be some rope in allowing bonus different ranks, and haveing a different number of these ranks open depending on the size of your fleet. |
This is all that most of us probably need to hear/be reminded of.
To paraphrase something from early on in the game:
"Let's just get the basics working first, we can add the 'fluffies' later."
I think most of us forget we are still working on the basics and very few fluffies are getting erm... fluffed up ... at this stage. I certainly do. The game has moved on so much since it started that it's easy to forget its still a "work in progress" as it were.
Thanks David. As long as there's still room for "fluffies" later, I think the majority of us will be happy.
But the endless discussion is wearing people down
And now its even spilled over to the Yahoo forum Lets get on with it, do the changes and then tweak afterwards if they turn out to be crap
.Lets play the game.
Gordon
