Considering Change to Naval Organization

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Another considering change thread

I'm starting work on the new Fleet window and deciding how to structure it. I will be displaying fleets in a tree view (like populations), rather than a dropdown list, and I am going to build in some of the functionality from the current naval organisation tab. For example, you will be able to set up a hierarchy of naval 'administration' to which you attach your task groups.

You will also be able to have administrative 'sub-fleets' within a task group and be able to view the ships in that task group fleet with or without the sub fleets (so you can set up battle squadrons within a task group and see them individually or combined). A task group with admin sub-fleets will still move as a single entity. A ship will always be part of the task group but will be able to have a sub-fleet assignment too. The current 'sub-fleet' functionality will be removed.

You will be able to easily detach one of the admin sub-fleets, which will become its own task group, and I will add a 'join as sub-fleet' order so that sub-fleet can retain its identity if it rejoins the original task group.

Now the 'considering' part..

I think I may remove task forces. They are a little clumsy to manage and many of the staff officer functions aren't that useful considering the complexity involved. Also, I intend to allow more than one officer per ship (first officer, etc) so there won't be the need for lots of junior officer positions. Instead, I am considering having commanders (without staff officers) within the hierarchy of naval administration that sits above the actual task groups. The issue is exactly how they would benefit the task groups below them.

1) One option is simply that they wouldn't. Instead they would gain some experience for being in the role that would be useful when they returned to task group command.
2) They provide a portion of their skills to the TGs under their command, perhaps split by the total number of ships within that command - so more ships, less benefit per ship.
3) They provide a portion of their skills to the TGs under their command, which is fixed but they can handle a limited number of ships based on their rank - this is more complex because you would have to track that number (which is a lot of micromanagement)
4) They provide a portion of their skills to the TGs under their command but only within a certain radius of systems, based on their rank (similar to sector commanders for populations). This would entail having a fixed location for each naval admin node (this is my preference at the moment).
5) As there may be multiple levels within the naval administration, only the lowest level would benefit TGs. Higher levels would train the officers beneath them.

Another extra complexity may be to have certain types of admin commands with advantages / disadvantages. For example, a Survey admin command would benefit combat less but survey more and could have a longer reach. A logistics command would be weighted toward benefiting freighters, a 'Carrier Striking Force' admin command would have benefits for fighters, etc.

There would also be an issue of relative rank, so an 'admin commander' would not benefit a task group led by someone of higher rank.

I'm still considering exactly how to handle this so any comments and suggestions are welcome.

[Scandinavian]

Each Squadron (corresponding to the current Task Group) could be assigned a Squadron Commander assigned to its lead ship (assigned by the player or picked by automatically according to some selection criteria). The Squadron Commander plus the Captain of each ship contribute to order response time and jump sickness delay. This might need a new skill for Squadron Maneuvers.

Officers could be given an Admin rating, and incur penalties to all their skills if they had more direct reports than their Admin rating (counting only commanders of vessels with a Bridge for his direct reports). Each vessel with a Flag Bridge would then be able to host a Task Force Commander, who could add their Admin rating to their direct reports for the purpose of determining whether they were over command limit. Same command limit mechanic would apply to them (meaning effectively that a good admiral is a good bureaucrat rather than a good captain), but they could in turn be assigned to a Sector Governor who could boost their admin limit. The flag bridge could be further populated by an operations officer, a public relations officer (bonus to PPV), a Jump Officer (reducing the scatter between individual fleet elements in a Squadron Jump), and assorted other flag staff as required.

Squadrons folded into each other via the sub-fleet mechanic discussed above would retain their command structure (i.e. just because six squadrons happen to be in the same spot does not mean that they lose their individual squadron flags).

[Edit:] Not strictly related, but it also sounds like a good place to tie with the multiple officers per vessel mechanic.

One way to do it would be to make your non-captain officers represent different departments - chief engineer, helmsman, tactical officer, etc. - which would be assigned to vessels with the relevant components.

So you'd always have a Captain and an XO, but you'd get:
- A Helmsman if you had engines
- A Chief Engineer if you had engineering bays or damage control compartments
- A Tac Officer if you had fire controls
- A Sensor Officer if you had military-grade sensors
- A Survey officer if you had survey modules
- A Hangar Control officer if you had parasite capabilities
- A Logistics Officer if you had cargo bays, troop bays, or large cryo bays
- A Production Control officer if you had industry (gate building, harvesting, asteroid mining, maintenance modules)
- A Planetary Ecologist if you had terraformers
- A Chief Security Officer if you had recreation, habitat, or luxury liner modules

Vessels with no Bridge would not get junior officers.

Mechanically, the junior officers could contribute their relevant ability to checks that are influenced by crew grade and officer skill: Targeting for the tac officer, Initiative for the helmsman, emergency repair times for the chief engineer, production and terraforming rates for the PCO and planetologist, load and discharge times for the logistics officer, and survey point generation for the survey officer (the rest would be for show for now, since those departments are not influenced by officer skill as far as I can tell).

The Captain or the XO would contribute to each skill check (so a Captain who is a brilliant tac officer but has ten thumbs can delegate engineering to their XO).

Crew Training would be modified by Captain + XO (again according to the rule of having two officers contribute to each modifier).

[schroeam]

I like the fleet admin redesign, but I would like to keep the Task Force structure (i.e. commander, ops, fighter ops, survey, etc.) but maybe have it tailored for fleet composition.  If the fleet is warship based then the survey slot is N/A'd, and without fighters the fighter ops slot is N/A'd.  Maybe add in Terraforming to provide bonus for the various terraforming fleets roaming the vastness of space.  Keeping these admin slots open allows for officers to benefit multiple ships and stacking the admin and sub admins does what Sector Governor and Governor combination does for the colonies they are assigned.  The difference is the further down the chain the ship is from the admin level, the less affect that level does.  (CNO, Fleet, Task Force, Task Group, Squadron, Ship)  The ship would benefit more from the Squadron admin group than the CNO, but the benefits would add up and contribute in the end.

As for multiple officers on ships maybe the following, or something like it:
   No bridge, just a commander
   bridge adds an XO
   wardroom adds division officers

The division officers could be assigned based on what components are placed on the ship.  All ships would have a Navigator, Engineer, Communications Officer, and Supply Officer.  Beam weapons add a Gunnery Officer.  Missile Weapons adds a Tactical Officer.  Damage Control adds a Damage Control officer.  Sensors adds a Sensor Officer.   Troop Transport Bay adds Security Officer (manned by ground forces).  Survey sensors adds survey officer.  Hangar Deck adds Flight Ops Officer. Etc, Etc, Etc... 

Adding the Wardroom makes available the bonuses these officers would add to the performance of the ship.  Also, adding the wardroom and not filling the slots that open up leads to the ship operating at less than optimum.  The same for the bridge.  Adding a bridge and assigning an XO benefits the ship, but not assigning an XO negatively affects the ship (counter to real life, I know ) 

This all starts to get very manpower intensive, but we don't play this game because we like easy problems.  We are in it for the details.

[Garfunkel]

I don't mind losing the current TF organization if it is being replaced with "proper" chain of command.

I would recommend doing something similar to how Hearts of Iron 3 handles the bonuses that leaders gíve:

1. Major general gives 100% of his skill bonus to the single division he commands.
2. Lieutenant general gives 50% of his skill bonus to the corps he commands (and corps is 1-5 divisions).
3. General gives 25% of his skill bonus to the army he commands (and army is 1-5 corps).
4. Field marshall gives 12.5 % of his skill bonus to the army group he commands (and AG is 1-5 armies).
5. Finally on theater level, another field marshall gives 6.25% of his skill bonus to every unit that is attached to that theatre.

Then in addition to that, each HQ/general has a limited radio/communication range and units outside of that range lose all the bonuses from leadership. This forces players to keep their organization tidy and neat - even with a small army, you cannot group everything under as few leaders as possible because that limits the geographical range you can have. In Aurora, this would means that admin posts both are less effective the more ships are under it (or the more sub-admins it has) but it is also restricted in the number of systems it can oversee, like sector commanders.

So we could have admin posts (division commander - squadron commander - task force commander - fleet commander) and I would just love it if the system was customizable and supported a matrix style leadership function, ie make a ship part of 2 different organizations simultaneously. For example, all destroyers would belong to do destroyer flotillas that belong to escort vessels command for training and maintenance purposes, while at the same time they would belong to task forces for operational purposes.

[bean]

I'd definitely like to see a more complex organization, somewhat mirroring the modern naval system.  Specifically, I'd go with (for ships) squadron/TG/TF/Fleet, although fighters might be able to do the same.  Each level would have its own commander, who would give bonuses to subordinate units.  I agree with Garfunkel on the scaling of bonuses, although it might be interesting to have the bonuses also be affected by the flag facilities available to the commander in question.  So while squadron command (2-6 vessels) doesn't require any flag facilities, a TG commander attempting to operate without flag facilities is limited to maybe 2 squadrons, a 5 HS flag bridge gives him up to 5 and/or increases the bonus he gives to them.  (Say that 2 independent ships make a squadron equivalent.)
Particularly at the TF/Fleet level, bigger flag facilities would allow command bonuses to apply in other star systems and to vast fleets.  I'd like it to go from ships with built-in flag facilities on one end of the spectrum to specialized command ships (like USS Blue Ridge) at the other.
I also like the fleet specialization idea.  One thing that has never worked well for me is survey fleets, and giving survey organizations a big bonus to geographical span seems like it would make them useful.

[chrislocke2000]

I like Garfunkel's and Byron's suggestions however I think this would need some sort of chain of command summary which showed what bonuses were being applied to each ship from each officer and highlighting where bonuses were not being applied and why. Otherwise I can see with the increased complexity a lot of frustration in working out why you were getting bonuses in some places but not in others.

I like the idea of a land based command that could scale up in terms of system coverage in much the same way that a sector command does at the moment.

[TCD]

This would be a pretty radical change but I'd actually like to see the chain of command being required to form (larger) task groups. To me it seems realistic that a command structure (and the logistics to go with it) allows larger and more complicated fleets to be formed. The ship commander and task group commander can both still provide bonuses, but require the logistics to back that up. Sub groups would gain the same bonuses as the main group, and would be included in the number of ships in the group. In other words I can send 100 cruisers into battle as individual ships, but if I want them to fight as a unified force then I need to invest in a command structure.

As a start for the numbers

1-4 ships - no requirements, task group commander can be freely selected
5-9 ships - task group commander required, required rank increases with group size (like planetary governors), must be higher rank than subordinates.
10-19 ships - flag bridge required
20+ ships - fleet command required

Fleet commands would be planet based, and would support one fleet and one flag officer per construction level. That would allow you to create multiple specialized fleet commands, but at a cost.

Fighters would be treated similarly but with different numbers, and would require fighter command components above a certain squadron size.

[Erik L]

I like the ability currently to create a task force for escorting, and attach it to another TF as a screening element. I'd hate to lose this ability.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I like the ability currently to create a task force for escorting, and attach it to another TF as a screening element. I'd hate to lose this ability.

I am removing task forces, not task groups. The task force is just an admin organisation. You can still have one task group escort another.

[Erik L]

I am removing task forces, not task groups. The task force is just an admin organisation. You can still have one task group escort another.

Good. Cold drugs are a good thing. I'm going back to work now. My code should be fun to read when I recover.

[bean]

This would be a pretty radical change but I'd actually like to see the chain of command being required to form (larger) task groups. To me it seems realistic that a command structure (and the logistics to go with it) allows larger and more complicated fleets to be formed. The ship commander and task group commander can both still provide bonuses, but require the logistics to back that up. Sub groups would gain the same bonuses as the main group, and would be included in the number of ships in the group. In other words I can send 100 cruisers into battle as individual ships, but if I want them to fight as a unified force then I need to invest in a command structure.

Interesting idea.  The problem is that Aurora doesn't really allow modeling of the sort of penalties which would actually occur if you send in 100 cruisers individually, because you're in charge of all of them all of the time.  Allowing that to be an effective, if micromanagement-heavy strategy, seems a little bit odd.  I can see definite disadvantages to sending in all 100 cruisers in a single TG (large groups react more slowly than small groups), but I'd tend to treat reasonable groups of ships (>4?) as single units, and give bonuses from command, with command also allowing some increase in the number of ships in the TG before penalties start to accrue.
Another issue is commercial ships.  Particularly early on, I tend to have large numbers of relatively small freighters in big TGs, and while it would be very realistic to have them suffer penalties in combat because they're not used to working together in close order, it would be a lot of extra work to have to split them up because of these rules.

I'd also argue against any but the very highest level of command being forced to be shore-based.  Your Admiralty is unlikely to be at sea, but even today, major US fleets (the only country that really has that sort of organization any more) fly their flags afloat, on specialized command ships (which I'd really like to see).  It's theater commanders who are land-based, but there's not a particularly good parallel between them and things we'll find in Aurora.

[chrislocke2000]

In terms of dealing with oversize squadrons or number of vessels in excess of control limits I would have thought just using the current mechanic of order execution delays and fire delays would be an ok option with this obviously becoming progressively worse the more ships over the limit you have.

Just had a couple of thoughts on local benefits of having appropriate skilled people in the command chain:
- Logistics officer potentially providing a further percentage improvement in fuel efficiency
- XO improving damage control rating and hence speed of repairs
- Engineering improving the maintenance life through reduced failure rates and / or reduction in maintenance supplies needed
- Weapons officer providing small percentage increase in effective range / tracking speed of fire controls or upping interception chance on missiles
- Sensors being able to provide percentage increase in effective range of actives / passives

[TCD]

Interesting idea.  The problem is that Aurora doesn't really allow modeling of the sort of penalties which would actually occur if you send in 100 cruisers individually, because you're in charge of all of them all of the time.  Allowing that to be an effective, if micromanagement-heavy strategy, seems a little bit odd.  I can see definite disadvantages to sending in all 100 cruisers in a single TG (large groups react more slowly than small groups), but I'd tend to treat reasonable groups of ships (>4?) as single units, and give bonuses from command, with command also allowing some increase in the number of ships in the TG before penalties start to accrue.

I was thinking that the penalty in sending in individual ships is that they don't get the bonuses from your one brilliant TG commander, whereas a 100 strong task group would all get his bonuses. So rather than adding on penalties, more about taking away a bonus.

Another issue is commercial ships.  Particularly early on, I tend to have large numbers of relatively small freighters in big TGs, and while it would be very realistic to have them suffer penalties in combat because they're not used to working together in close order, it would be a lot of extra work to have to split them up because of these rules.

You could treat commercial ships as exempt from the rules, but I agree that this is rather unsatisfactory. Do you really use TG of 20+ freighters? Below that size you'd just need to assign a senior officer as TG commander, which seems like a realistic cost of assembling big convoys. And I always have some useless captains and admirals who are perfectly suited to pulling that assignment.

I'd also argue against any but the very highest level of command being forced to be shore-based.  Your Admiralty is unlikely to be at sea, but even today, major US fleets (the only country that really has that sort of organization any more) fly their flags afloat, on specialized command ships (which I'd really like to see).  It's theater commanders who are land-based, but there's not a particularly good parallel between them and things we'll find in Aurora.

In many ways I'd agree, but could the US admirals fly their flags afloat without all of the land based admin and support functions? That said I guess I wouldn't be opposed to using large components instead.

[bean]

I was thinking that the penalty in sending in individual ships is that they don't get the bonuses from your one brilliant TG commander, whereas a 100 strong task group would all get his bonuses. So rather than adding on penalties, more about taking away a bonus.

I see where you were coming from.  I'm in favor of throttling bonuses based on available command/flag facilities, which I think amounts to much the same thing.

You could treat commercial ships as exempt from the rules, but I agree that this is rather unsatisfactory. Do you really use TG of 20+ freighters?

I do.  Rather frequently in my big games, which involve a lot of ships.

Below that size you'd just need to assign a senior officer as TG commander, which seems like a realistic cost of assembling big convoys. And I always have some useless captains and admirals who are perfectly suited to pulling that assignment.

It's not a proper convoy, though.  It's more of an administrative convenience in most cases, keeping down the number of groups I have to order around.  I'd be very much in favor of making those groups react much more poorly in combat than proper commanded convoys.

In many ways I'd agree, but could the US admirals fly their flags afloat without all of the land based admin and support functions? That said I guess I wouldn't be opposed to using large components instead.

It depends on how you define 'land based admin and support facilities'.  If you define them as broadly as possible, then no, it's obviously impossible for any navy to function without shore facilities.  But we already have most of those facilities modeled in Aurora.  If you're suggesting that flying the flag afloat is basically a formality, and the actual work is done ashore (the extreme example being the RN, which gives its bases ship names for historical reasons), then I think the answer is yes.  US flagships are quite large and dedicated solely to the purpose of basing the fleet staff.  Yes, lots of work is done by subordinate units ashore, but that's all modelable in Aurora as-is.

[Garfunkel]

One thing to keep in mind is that currently Aurora is quite flexible when it comes to what kind of games you want to play, so it would be awesome if this functionality was kept, so Steve should avoid hard-coded limits. If a player wants to run a race that operates a silly, inefficient organization, that should be possible. Which is why I'm not a fan of strict numerical limits on what officers can command.