Author Topic: New Naval Organization Structure  (Read 5828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
New Naval Organization Structure
« on: February 15, 2010, 07:56:11 PM »
As a result of a conversation with John last night, I have added a new Fleet Organization option for v5.0, using a fourth tab on the F12 window. This can be ignored without affecting any current game play but even with my brief play around with it, I am finding it incredibly useful :)) but you get the idea.

As well as the battle-related functionality above, I have found this very useful for keeping track of my freighters, colony ships, construction ships, etc. I can just see at a glance where they are deployed. For example, in the screenshot below I have grouped my freighters into different models and switched on the option to show fleet and location for ships. You could organize them differently in whatever structure you wanted. Clicking on one of the freighters will select its task group in the main part of the window. If I wanted to, I could also switch on the Centre Map option so clicking on them would also centre the map on their location.

[attachment=0:2djtk5t2]AA5.JPG[/attachment:2djtk5t2]
All of the above is phase one of the Fleet Organization and is already working. Phase Two will be the ability to create Task Groups containing ships from different parts of the hierarchy, so you could attach colliers from Logistics Command to a Destroyer Squadron from Task Force 01. This will be done using the Stored Branches functionality, either for ad-hoc one-off formations or for creating permament cross-hierachy groupings and retrieving them into the stored branches section. I'll probably add more to this thread as I play around with the organization chart.

Steve
 

Offline Venec

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • V
  • Posts: 47
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2010, 08:12:50 PM »
Looks wicked  :)
 

Offline Sherban

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 15
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2010, 08:14:48 PM »
This is great, Steve. I can't wait to experience it in "real life". Thank you!
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2010, 08:23:47 PM »
YAY!

Near perfect implementation for how i've wanted to organise my fleets, one question though, would it be possible to add a level ABOVE TF level, for example having Grand Fleet, then having the Battle fleet etc at the TF level instead of the other way round.  

What I'd like to do is have my second tier of the organisation operating with their Flag groups, So for example First Battle Squadron has its on Flagship and associated officers.  

Actually I'd really like to be able to create multiple levels of Flag, So I could have a Fleet Commander, and a Division Commander, only issue would be with stacking bonus for multiple levels of commander in the same system.

I'm not sure how coherent I've been here, to try and clarify  :oops:   I absolutley love the way you have the OB set now, but I would like the opportunity to mark different levels of the order as being "Commands" and therefore having a staff.  and would really like to be able to have multiple levels of command in the OB (with perhaps lessening effect on ships the further away they are up the OB??)

Matt
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2010, 08:38:15 PM »
Looks great, Steve!  Guess you've been busy for the last 16 hours or so :-)

John
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2010, 08:43:21 PM »
Another thought (which came up in our discussion as a side note) - this looks perfect for applying to ground forces as well.  Any plans for that?

John
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2010, 09:08:17 PM »
Two more thoughts:

1)  A question - how does the "TF" pulldown associated with the TG interact with the TOE tab?  My inclination would be to deprecate the TF pulldown from the TG, or at least not have it change the TF assignment of ships within it (i.e. it only indicates which TF headquarters should be used for accessing training levels of the ships in that TG - it doesn't change the TF assignments of the ships).  I realize that this would break the "you can igore this if you want" statement about the 4th tab, but I prefer using the 4th tab as the means of assigning ships to TF over using the TG, even if one doesn't put any sub-structure into the TF.

2)  A realization - I think I can stop naming my ships by class and a number and go to giving individual names (which I haven't done since something like SA 5.x).  The reason for class+number was to make them easy to find e.g. all the carriers on the F6 screen, but I can now use the 4th tab of F12 to browse for ships.

John
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2010, 04:03:47 PM »
Quote from: "boggo2300"
I'm not sure how coherent I've been here, to try and clarify  :). I am wondering whether to change the meaning of task forces and instead allow commanders and staff officers at any point on the org structure.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2010, 04:05:11 PM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Looks great, Steve!  Guess you've been busy for the last 16 hours or so :). VB6 may have its detractors but you can certainly get things done quickly :)

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2010, 04:11:19 PM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
1)  A question - how does the "TF" pulldown associated with the TG interact with the TOE tab?  My inclination would be to deprecate the TF pulldown from the TG, or at least not have it change the TF assignment of ships within it (i.e. it only indicates which TF headquarters should be used for accessing training levels of the ships in that TG - it doesn't change the TF assignments of the ships).  I realize that this would break the "you can igore this if you want" statement about the 4th tab, but I prefer using the 4th tab as the means of assigning ships to TF over using the TG, even if one doesn't put any sub-structure into the TF.
When you create a TG at the moment it was use the parent TF of whatever branch you specified. However, now you have pointed this out I realise that you can move ships from TF to TF on this tab when you move stored branches. At the moment it doesn't change the TF in that situation but that is through accident rather than design.

I am tempted to remove the loss of training points when you switch task forces and treat the training points as general fleet training rather than task force specific training. It's the training itself that is more important and I think the loss of TFTP when you switch TFs is too much micromanagement for the small gameplay benefit. This would mean that moving units between task forces becomes an admin function and you don't have to worry too much about the implications. You will still have to train ships to operate as fleets but their ultimate assignment won't affect that. In fact, this change would allow you to create a Training Task Force with appropriate officers and designate a system as the fleet training centre.

Steve
 

Offline Beersatron

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2010, 05:17:28 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"
1)  A question - how does the "TF" pulldown associated with the TG interact with the TOE tab?  My inclination would be to deprecate the TF pulldown from the TG, or at least not have it change the TF assignment of ships within it (i.e. it only indicates which TF headquarters should be used for accessing training levels of the ships in that TG - it doesn't change the TF assignments of the ships).  I realize that this would break the "you can igore this if you want" statement about the 4th tab, but I prefer using the 4th tab as the means of assigning ships to TF over using the TG, even if one doesn't put any sub-structure into the TF.
When you create a TG at the moment it was use the parent TF of whatever branch you specified. However, now you have pointed this out I realise that you can move ships from TF to TF on this tab when you move stored branches. At the moment it doesn't change the TF in that situation but that is through accident rather than design.

I am tempted to remove the loss of training points when you switch task forces and treat the training points as general fleet training rather than task force specific training. It's the training itself that is more important and I think the loss of TFTP when you switch TFs is too much micromanagement for the small gameplay benefit. This would mean that moving units between task forces becomes an admin function and you don't have to worry too much about the implications. You will still have to train ships to operate as fleets but their ultimate assignment won't affect that. In fact, this change would allow you to create a Training Task Force with appropriate officers and designate a system as the fleet training centre.

Steve

This gets my vote!
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2010, 05:39:24 PM »
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"
1)  A question - how does the "TF" pulldown associated with the TG interact with the TOE tab?  My inclination would be to deprecate the TF pulldown from the TG, or at least not have it change the TF assignment of ships within it (i.e. it only indicates which TF headquarters should be used for accessing training levels of the ships in that TG - it doesn't change the TF assignments of the ships).  I realize that this would break the "you can igore this if you want" statement about the 4th tab, but I prefer using the 4th tab as the means of assigning ships to TF over using the TG, even if one doesn't put any sub-structure into the TF.
When you create a TG at the moment it was use the parent TF of whatever branch you specified. However, now you have pointed this out I realise that you can move ships from TF to TF on this tab when you move stored branches. At the moment it doesn't change the TF in that situation but that is through accident rather than design.

I am tempted to remove the loss of training points when you switch task forces and treat the training points as general fleet training rather than task force specific training. It's the training itself that is more important and I think the loss of TFTP when you switch TFs is too much micromanagement for the small gameplay benefit. This would mean that moving units between task forces becomes an admin function and you don't have to worry too much about the implications. You will still have to train ships to operate as fleets but their ultimate assignment won't affect that. In fact, this change would allow you to create a Training Task Force with appropriate officers and designate a system as the fleet training centre.

Steve

This gets my vote!

Ditto, and I like the idea of being able to put commanders in at any level as well

Matt
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2010, 08:55:52 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"
1)  A question - how does the "TF" pulldown associated with the TG interact with the TOE tab?  My inclination would be to deprecate the TF pulldown from the TG, or at least not have it change the TF assignment of ships within it (i.e. it only indicates which TF headquarters should be used for accessing training levels of the ships in that TG - it doesn't change the TF assignments of the ships).  I realize that this would break the "you can igore this if you want" statement about the 4th tab, but I prefer using the 4th tab as the means of assigning ships to TF over using the TG, even if one doesn't put any sub-structure into the TF.
When you create a TG at the moment it was use the parent TF of whatever branch you specified. However, now you have pointed this out I realise that you can move ships from TF to TF on this tab when you move stored branches. At the moment it doesn't change the TF in that situation but that is through accident rather than design.

I am tempted to remove the loss of training points when you switch task forces and treat the training points as general fleet training rather than task force specific training. It's the training itself that is more important and I think the loss of TFTP when you switch TFs is too much micromanagement for the small gameplay benefit. This would mean that moving units between task forces becomes an admin function and you don't have to worry too much about the implications. You will still have to train ships to operate as fleets but their ultimate assignment won't affect that. In fact, this change would allow you to create a Training Task Force with appropriate officers and designate a system as the fleet training centre.
A follow up. I have removed the loss of TFTP for changing TFs so you can now swap ships between TF as much as you like, although they will still need fleet training regardless of which task force they are assigned to.

I agree that the new Naval Org Chart should be the final arbiter of TF assignment. Therefore when you assign a ship to a branch of the org chart, it's task force changes to match the parent TF of that branch. This create a small problem however. At the moment, both ships and task groups have an assigned task force and I have made sure that every ship in a task group has the same task force as that task group. The new org chart is going to make that impossible to maintain because a TG could contain ships from multiple task forces. On the basis that the Org Chart is the permament organization structure of the Navy and task groups are, as the name suggests, simply groups of ships assembled for a short-term task, I think the simplest solution is to make task groups independent of task forces. A task group would no longer have a set task force and instead individual ships within that task group could belong to different task forces.

That leaves the question of how ships in a task group benefit from their parent task force for the purposes of training, responding to orders, logistics, etc. I can see several alternatives

1) The ships in a task group could train, or respond to orders, based on the stats of their different task forces as long as they are in the same system as the TF HQ, which is a little messy.
2) Ships could be placed on detachment from their permanent task force for the purposes of training or other activites and this would be handled at the TG level. In other words, a TG would have a temporary TF designation. Not entirely happy with this though as what would be the point of the TFs in the org structure
3) Task groups are restricted to ships from the same TF (which defeats some of the cross-branch opportunities)
4) The TF function as it stands is changed to two different geographically-based functions. One is a Port Admiral function based on a planet that provides non-combat bonuses, such as logistics or improved maintenance, to all ships within a given system. The other is a Flag Bridge based function that provides combat-related bonuses to all ships in the same TG, or within a given radius in km. These two functions are independent of the Org structure and ships are no longer assigned to a TF at all, just a point on the org structure. In this case, the TF layer of the org chart would use only the Port Admiral TFs, or no TF at all. In the latter case, Task Forces become, like TGs, independent of the permanent org structure and are used to influence nearby TGs for training, combat, etc.
5) Other suggestions welcome

Steve
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2010, 10:45:18 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
That leaves the question of how ships in a task group benefit from their parent task force for the purposes of training, responding to orders, logistics, etc. I can see several alternatives

1) The ships in a task group could train, or respond to orders, based on the stats of their different task forces as long as they are in the same system as the TF HQ, which is a little messy.
2) Ships could be placed on detachment from their permanent task force for the purposes of training or other activites and this would be handled at the TG level. In other words, a TG would have a temporary TF designation. Not entirely happy with this though as what would be the point of the TFs in the org structure
3) Task groups are restricted to ships from the same TF (which defeats some of the cross-branch opportunities)
4) The TF function as it stands is changed to two different geographically-based functions. One is a Port Admiral function based on a planet that provides non-combat bonuses, such as logistics or improved maintenance, to all ships within a given system. The other is a Flag Bridge based function that provides combat-related bonuses to all ships in the same TG, or within a given radius in km. These two functions are independent of the Org structure and ships are no longer assigned to a TF at all, just a point on the org structure. In this case, the TF layer of the org chart would use only the Port Admiral TFs, or no TF at all. In the latter case, Task Forces become, like TGs, independent of the permanent org structure and are used to influence nearby TGs for training, combat, etc.
5) Other suggestions welcome

If I understand it correctly, I really like number 4, especially if you make it range based (say 5-10 light seconds to represent speed-of-light delays).  Looking at the USN in the western Pacific, the Pacific Fleet and possibly 7th Fleet would be "Port Admiral" (Administrative?) fleets, while a CVBG would be a "Flag Bridge" (Combat?) fleet.  The big question I have is "where to put training (admin vs. combat)?"  After thinking about it, I think it should go in both, since both the administrative command and the actual TG commander can influence training.  Here's a different thought (I'm trying to think of ways in which admin admirals would be useful): what if admin admirals improved the chances for subordinate commanders to increase their skill levels?

The other reason I like this is the TG command ships - it gives a strong incentive to have enough flag bridges in the fleet to be able to control individual TG.

[pause while thinking about the cost of flag bridges and the rank required for a flag]

Here's a thought:  Do you want to have several sizes of flag bridge, e.g. 1, 2, 5, 10?  You could give bigger span of control (either in formation count or range) to bigger bridges, and permit lower-ranked officers to command smaller flag bridges.  The reason I'm thinking along these lines is (in WWII terms) the difference between flag accomodations on a battleship vs. a destroyer - I imagine things are a bit more cramped on a destroyer :-)  It also occurred to me that if we have combat flags at multiple levels of the org chart, then it will quickly become difficult to fill up all those staffs, which might mean going lower in the rank barrel for flag officers.  The reason I said "formation count" above was I was thinking about the commander of a fighter or FAC squadron - they're likely to have a high count of ships, but not require a lot of admin overhead for said ships (since the ships are parasites).  Maybe FAC should cost 5x less in ship count and fighters 25x less?

Another thought (probably not for 5.0):  What if you put in a numerical span of control for combat flags as well - something like 5-10 sub-units, where a sub-unit is either a ship or a combat flag using the next level of flag bridge down.  This would give a game reason the Jutland OOB - the reason to have divisions of 4 BB is because the fleet admiral can't excercise immediate control over 16-20 individual BB.

John
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: New Naval Organization Structure
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2010, 11:53:05 PM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Here's a thought:  Do you want to have several sizes of flag bridge, e.g. 1, 2, 5, 10?  You could give bigger span of control (either in formation count or range) to bigger bridges, and permit lower-ranked officers to command smaller flag bridges.  The reason I'm thinking along these lines is (in WWII terms) the difference between flag accomodations on a battleship vs. a destroyer - I imagine things are a bit more cramped on a destroyer :-)  It also occurred to me that if we have combat flags at multiple levels of the org chart, then it will quickly become difficult to fill up all those staffs, which might mean going lower in the rank barrel for flag officers.  The reason I said "formation count" above was I was thinking about the commander of a fighter or FAC squadron - they're likely to have a high count of ships, but not require a lot of admin overhead for said ships (since the ships are parasites).  Maybe FAC should cost 5x less in ship count and fighters 25x less?

John
I really like this idea, I'd suggest formation count, and possibly sub-formations as well, (ie a small flag bridge lets you command 3 ships in 1 TG, a large flag bridge, lets you control 8 ships, in subordinate formations as well as your own TG)

I think range is probably going to introduce too much in the way of micromanagement, making sure your TG are together, I'd say leave the control range to a system like it is now, and allow more ships controlled per bigger flag organisations (hmm possibly restrict the number pf classes for smaller ones?)

Mattt
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.