More Navy arguments(was Personalising the Oolite experience)

[matt634]

I agree that being referred to as Commander Captain Hesperus is stupid and would drive me to trumble dealing if I heard too many times (hhhhmmm). On the other hand, I don't think players should be able to arbitrarily choose whatever rank they like. Perhaps there could be an option when you start a new character asking if you'd like your title to be COMMANDER or CAPTAIN since they're mostly analogous - in the US Navy Captains out rank Commanders by one pay grade This of course would be mostly for the benefit of one player, which is why I voted fish.

...the head of the Navy is "usually a serving Admiral or Commodore". That would make for a pretty small navy!

I don't think it says so much about the size of the Navy, but more about the highly decentralized command structure.

[Roberto]

You would also not be a Gentleman, but that's another story.

Nice

...the head of the Navy is "usually a serving Admiral or Commodore". That would make for a pretty small navy!

I don't think it says so much about the size of the Navy, but more about the highly decentralized command structure.

So, in terms of career-Navy staff, each sector has tens/hundreds of Captains commanded by one senior Captain/Commodore, with one Commodore lording over it all? That's crazy - too many mid-level chiefs, no big chiefs and no indians! Unless there are only a few Captains, which would suggest (to me) a ridiculously tiny organisation. In my future fiction (when I get round to it) I'm certainly going to make use of more ranks, above and below!

Btw, I think the idea of a completely decentralised organisation is a bit silly too - while each SecCom, being "on the spot", could have considerable freedom of action within their sector (just as a Royal Navy Captain in the 18th/early 19th century had almost limitless power over his ship's company), *some* centralised resource management/strategic planning is surely to be expected. I doubt the Thargoids would attack in a dumb, uncoordinated fashion, or fail to vary the deployment of their forces across the various galaxies/Navy sectors - there'd be "campaigns", or at the least, fluctuations. For the Navy not to respond to these/plan their own manoeuvres on a "galactic" level (nor to take a "galactic" view on the issues of recruitment, repairs and ship production) would indicate an extreme lack of intelligence within the command structure, and within GalCop as a whole. I don't buy it.

[cade]

... could have considerable freedom of action within their sector (just as a Royal Navy Captain in the 18th/early 19th century ...

Or a modern day submarine Commanding Officer (hunter killer subs) who has far greater freedom in comparison to surface vessel C.O's who are in almost constant contact with higher command.

By the way, to throw things in the air even more, a majority of UK submarines are currently commanded by Commanders, not Captains.

[Roberto]

You've got me wanting to watch Crimson Tide again

[matt634]

I picture it more like this:

There are tens/hundreds of captains each serving under a Carrier Group/Fleet "Commander" who is usually a ranking Commodore/Vice Admiral/Rear Admiral/Admiral. All of the Carrier Group/Fleet "Commanders" are subordinate to the Sector "Commander" who was himself some sort of Commodore or Admiral before being promoted to the position of SecCom. The Commander-in-Chief, himself a former Sector Commander in most cases, and therefore a ranking Commodore/Admiral, has ultimate authority but does not micromanage the war. I would think the Commander-in-Chief's executive office would have to be quite large, staffed with hundreds of officers, to oversee the war effort.

There are plenty of Indians - vast ranks of enlisted men and commissioned officers; a good number of mid-level chiefs - carrier group/fleet commanders; and just a few big chiefs - sector commanders and the commander and chief.

I do think it would be difficult for a Commodore acting as Commander-in-Chief to command the full respect of the serving Admirals and carry out his position effectively. But, its important to note that the Commander-in-Chief is a political appointment by the Galcop President and not a Navy decision. Perhaps in past circumstances it was politically expedient to have a disfunctional Navy? Or, perhaps the Commodore was a close friend of the president? When politics are interjected, it's anyone's guess.

[TGHC]

Noone's mentioned Supreme Commander yet!

[matt634]

Or, First Space Lord

[Roberto]

That would work. It was the notion of a lack of career-Navy ranks below Captain, as suggested by Capt H...

I assumed the reason for this rank was so that when they are called into action they are squadroned with and given orders by a de facto Captain from the Regular Navy.

...combined with the possibility of only one higher rank (Commodore) that seemed daft to me.

Here's how I would envisage the hierarchy (if anyone cares at this point!):

Navy Commander-in-Chief
Admiral
Commodore
Captain
Commander
Lt Commander
Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
Ensign
Recruit

A SecCom would most likely be a Captain or (in a major sector) a Commodore. Having only one "non-commissioned" rank simplifies things and suggests a Navy that's fairly big, but not huge. I reckon on an average size for the Navy (including reserves) of a little under 100,000 men (assuming about 500-2,000 men per sector, with an average of 800, and roughly 14 sectors per "galaxy", plus a few thousand centralised pen-pushers/"operatives"/R&D bods/miscellaneous support guys). I don't know how that squares with other people's notions (or if anyone else even thinks about this stuff - Christ, I'm a geek!). 100,000 men is a drop in the ocean compared to GalCop's total population (numbering in the trillions, unless I'm mistaken), so in this interpretation of the Ooniverse, space is the preserve of the mega-rich/insane few

[Cmdr. Maegil]

I picture it more like this:

There are tens/hundreds of captains each serving under a Carrier Group/Fleet "Commander" who is usually a ranking Commodore/Vice Admiral/Rear Admiral/Admiral. All of the Carrier Group/Fleet "Commanders" are subordinate to the Sector "Commander" who was himself some sort of Commodore or Admiral before being promoted to the position of SecCom. The Commander-in-Chief, himself a former Sector Commander in most cases, and therefore a ranking Commodore/Admiral, has ultimate authority but does not micromanage the war. I would think the Commander-in-Chief's executive office would have to be quite large, staffed with hundreds of officers, to oversee the war effort.

Commodores supposedly command squadrons or small fleets while larger fleets up to entire battle groups or sector bases require a Rear Admiral; in both cases their duties are on the operational level (opposed to, for instance, a battleship's Captain who's not a flag officer and whose concerns are mainly tactical). It's the full Admirals that are the Commanders-in-Chief responsable for the overall strategic decisions.

Navy Commander-in-Chief
Admiral
Commodore
Captain
Commander
Lt Commander
Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
Ensign
Recruit

A SecCom would most likely be a Captain or (in a major sector) a Commodore. Having only one "non-commissioned" rank simplifies things and suggests a Navy that's fairly big, but not huge.

Sorry, you made that too top-heavy, and completely skipped the enlisted and the WO/NCOs...

[Roberto]

Sorry, you made that too top-heavy, and completely skipped the enlisted and the WO/NCOs...

Yes - it's a deliberate simplification. While I think the Navy needs a fair few ranks to have a reasonable command structure, I don't think it needs that many. And for me, terms such as Petty Officer, Warrant Officer or Midshipman don't fit very well with the whole spaceship thing. *EDIT* Also - nothing against NCOs! - the whole notion of a "commission" which some officers have and some don't seems kind of superfluous/anachronistic for a 31st-century galactic defence force.

It would mean junior officers wouldn't actually be that important - and there wouldn't be that many "flag officers", so despite the naming, it wouldn't be "top-heavy".

But I wouldn't expect many people to agree with me - it's just my own take on the organisation. Controversial, but hopefully somewhat logical

[Commander McLane]

I am really not too concerned with the naming of ranks, or the number of ranks, or the whole ranking system. To say the truth, I have not the slightest idea what all the titles thrown around here actually mean, less so as they are in English, but even in German I am completely illiterate of military ranks, and frankly I don't care. You tell me that a Captain is above a Commander? Okay, I believe you, but don't expect me to remember that fact tomorrow - or in five minutes, for that matter. I really couldn't care less. In my RealLife I am utterly and completely civilian, and actually more on the pacifistic side of things. (Anyway, no reason to discuss personal opinions here; I just want to emphasize that I really am not concerned at all with any military/naval affairs, you could straightforwardly call me analphabetic in this matter. )

So, therefore, if anybody wants to be called "Captain", "Lieutenant", or for Giles' sake even "Flag Officer" (what the frak that ever means), I say: Why not? That's just words to me.

*****

However, I would like to comment again on the matter of a decentralized Navy. To quote Roberto:

Btw, I think the idea of a completely decentralised organisation is a bit silly too - while each SecCom, being "on the spot", could have considerable freedom of action within their sector (just as a Royal Navy Captain in the 18th/early 19th century had almost limitless power over his ship's company), *some* centralised resource management/strategic planning is surely to be expected. I doubt the Thargoids would attack in a dumb, uncoordinated fashion, or fail to vary the deployment of their forces across the various galaxies/Navy sectors - there'd be "campaigns", or at the least, fluctuations. For the Navy not to respond to these/plan their own manoeuvres on a "galactic" level (nor to take a "galactic" view on the issues of recruitment, repairs and ship production) would indicate an extreme lack of intelligence within the command structure, and within GalCop as a whole. I don't buy it.

I agree that there is some kind of planning and co-ordination needed, while the SecComs maintain a certain degree of independence. But couldn't that be a planning and co-ordination between the SecComs? A conference of the SecCom-commanders under the Commander in Chief (there is surely a military name for this kind of body, but I of course don't know it), that decides on where to concentrate the forces and so on? Yes, there are indeed fluctuations on a galactic level, and in my opinion that's exactly what all the information about the Galactic Navy from the Wiki is all about. My main objective against Matt's OXP is that he fixes the sectors in each galaxy and ties each one to a station orbiting a certain planet. I still think this contradicts the Wiki, according to which the SecComs are mobile, and are always found where the war with the Thargoids is hottest. In other words: According to the wiki-perception of the Navy there are no permanent sectors in any of the galaxies, but it all fluctuates in a volatile war-situation.

To make it plastically by giving an example: One week there may be a heavy Thargoid attack in the north-west of Galaxy 1, so there may be as much as five Naval SecComs (and therefore sectors as well) around the planets Cemave, Sotera, Arxeza and Ceinzala. The following week these same five SecComs (and therefore sectors as well) may be spread evenly across the whole galaxy, perhaps located near Aesbion, Geerra, Ororqu, Xeaan and Atrienxe. That's how I envision the Galactic Navy, according to the information from the Wiki (and the rest of the background-info).

[ovvldc]

So, who is going to make an OXP that hands out nobility titles? You could have rankings in lots of places. Here's another list that might come in handy:

Code: Select all

None                Outsider        
Private             Serf            
Corporal            Master         
Sergeant            Sir            
Sgt-Major           Squire         
Major               Lord          
Colonel             Baron       
Lieutenant          Viscount    
Lt. Commander       Count       
Captain             Earl        
Commodore           Marquis    
Rear Admiral        Duke      
Admiral             Prince

Stop me if this all looks too familiar ...

-Oscar

[Cmdr. Maegil]

I'd realy like to know what was on Braben's head when he bollixed the rank tables like this... Oh, well!

[Captain Hesperus]

I'd realy like to know what was on Braben's head when he bollixed the rank tables like this... Oh, well!

So let me get this straight. FE:2 and FFE had a ranking system for the Feds that borrowed half from army (or the marines) and half from navy ranks.

Okay, head hurts now.

Captain Hesperus

[Cmdr. Maegil]

That's for the Feds; if you look at the Imp table you'll find that a Sir (a Knight) is lower than an Esquire (a landed commoner)... Then, what is the difference betweeen a Count and an Earl? And he's even supposed to be a Brit...

As I said, he really bollixed the tables!