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:
Roberto wrote: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).
