Designing a ship that only uses a rank 1 / officer retention

[scvn2812 (OP)]

Any tips for designing useful ships to stick promising tier 1 officers on that are actually useful for something? I know it is possible to force a ship to only require a certain rank to command it but I also know that its important not to do that for challenge and RP reasons, so I don't want to do that. Thus far, it seems that if you make anything that is anything  more than a bare bones non-jump capable freighter, it requires a tier 2 or higher officer. I designed a low tonnage civilian geo survey ship: no weapons, all civilian components and pretty low tonnage for a civvie but it still ended up requiring a tier 2 officer.

I don't need more freighters right now so I suppose my only other option is to create extra teams I don't need for the moment. I have a serious shortfall in tier 3 officers due to the rapid expansion of my navy and I have only exactly as many tier 2s as I need. On the other hand, I have 75% unemployment among my Tier 1s, the only reason most of the ones who do have a job have one is because they've been assigned to a team. I created some xenology and espionage teams I don't actually have a use for just to retain some of my more promising tier 1s that I can't get aboard a ship until one of the freighter captains gets promoted.

[HaliRyan]

I typically set my FACs to use tier 1 officers. A small, expendable 1000 ton ship is perfect for a first command in my opinion.

[sloanjh]

but I also know that its important not to do that for challenge and RP reasons, so I don't want to do that.

I don't understand why you say this.  Steve's rating system is an arbitrary choice that might not fit with your Navy.  For example, you might want a fleet auxiliary (e.g. oiler or tanker), even if a military design, to have commanders who are one grade lower than "normal" for that size of ship.

That being said, 1000 ton corvette designs (not FAC - I'm talking ships with 2 military engines) are VERY useful in general - they don't require a bridge, so the payload/engines-and-infrastructure ratio gets a boost.  These seem reasonable commands for level-1 officers.  If you don't like that, then fighters are certainly level-1 commands.

John

[Hawkeye]

I´m with Sloanjh on this. What is your problem with changing the required rank?
Sure, Steve could write a lengthy program to let Aurora judge a design of yours by the tonnage, speed, armor, shields, numbers and strength of armament, size of magazins,... but would it be worth the effort?

Per default, unarmed, commercial ships without survey sensors require rank 1, survey(?) and jumpships require rank 2 and armed ships rank 3. This is good enough for me.
If I design small ships (as Sloanjh says) lowering the needed rank is not only possible but absolutely reasonable.

What rank did the "captain" of a PT boat or a Flower class corvette in WW 2 have?
I highly doubt, those ships were commanded by full Captains.

[jRides]

I think your mixing up the assigning of civ administrators, its been mentioned that assigning administators to useless asteroids and the like so they are not sitting doing nothing and gaining no experience merely gaining age that it is "important not to do that for challenge and RP reasons". Even having said that there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing this, it certainly doesn't stop me.

[Steve Walmsley]

The rank assigned to each class is just a suggestion based on a very simple formula. You should feel free to assign whatever rank you think is appropriate. Bear in mind that the program will not assign anyone more than two ranks above the required rank, so if you specify R1 then no one above R3 will ever be assigned to that class.

Steve