Author Topic: Bridge Officers  (Read 2470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thanatos

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #60 on: March 23, 2017, 05:12:32 AM »
In regards to the first question about what ranks should be used for Chief Engineers, I'd keep them to the Warrant Officer ranks. Plus, I think a limitation of Task Force organization should be that the CO needs to be a flag officer. Also, it is often not uncommon to have people with ranks usually found in infantry organization serving aboard military vessels as the XO, like Majors and (lt) Colonels. A notable example would be the USAF and Marine Corp. It is not unlikely that with the further advance of technology and integration of combined arms, that these spots will be filled by field grade officers, serving under flag officers.

Anyway, for my suggestion of ranks:

CO: CMDR up to CAPT
XO: LCMDR ... CMDR (OR, Major... Lt. Colonel (Colonel if on Flag Bridge))
CEO: Chief Warrant Officer can be promoted to the billet.
CSO: 1LT ... MAJ
 

Offline Frank Jager

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2017, 10:46:47 AM »
Quote from: IanD link=topic=9444. msg101935#msg101935 date=1490257454
But would not the Commander be in the CIC during combat? During the Falklands war that is certainly where the Captains were in RN ships.  Thus you could have the Tactical fficer and the Captain killed in one hit on the CIC.

I would have thought that the Bridge is a proper place for a Captain, its not just the place where you drive the ship from? and some classes may not have a CIC or a Tactical officer.  Makes sense that the relevant information is carried to smaller (Read more focused) screens on the bridge, where one is present.

Were captains not in CIC because their ships were not moving put providing radar coverage for the air and ground combat elements.  To my knowledge there has been no direct ship to ship naval combat since WWII.  Captains were certainly on the bridges during that period.

Regards

Frank
 

Offline TheRowan

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2017, 08:34:55 AM »
I would have thought that the Bridge is a proper place for a Captain, its not just the place where you drive the ship from? and some classes may not have a CIC or a Tactical officer.  Makes sense that the relevant information is carried to smaller (Read more focused) screens on the bridge, where one is present.

Were captains not in CIC because their ships were not moving put providing radar coverage for the air and ground combat elements.  To my knowledge there has been no direct ship to ship naval combat since WWII.  Captains were certainly on the bridges during that period.

Regards

Frank

On modern warships, generally the captain will command the ship from the Ops Room (CIC in US usage) in combat, while the Bridge is primarily for navigational safety (ie. looking out of the window) and driving the ship, often under instructions from Warfare Officers in the Ops Room. The reason behind this is that the bridge needs to be exposed for visual navigation, and it also needs to be unlit at night for the same reasons - so not conducive to being heavily manned and stuffed with electronic displays. On Aurora ships, where visual navigation presumably isn't a factor, it would make sense to combine the command and navigation functions again into the Bridge, while using an Ops Room/CIC for picture compilation and situational awareness (i.e. processing the raw data to feed the Bridge's tactical display)
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 672
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #63 on: March 27, 2017, 09:07:09 AM »
In regards to the first question about what ranks should be used for Chief Engineers, I'd keep them to the Warrant Officer ranks. Plus, I think a limitation of Task Force organization should be that the CO needs to be a flag officer. Also, it is often not uncommon to have people with ranks usually found in infantry organization serving aboard military vessels as the XO, like Majors and (lt) Colonels. A notable example would be the USAF and Marine Corp. It is not unlikely that with the further advance of technology and integration of combined arms, that these spots will be filled by field grade officers, serving under flag officers.

Anyway, for my suggestion of ranks:

CO: CMDR up to CAPT
XO: LCMDR ... CMDR (OR, Major... Lt. Colonel (Colonel if on Flag Bridge))
CEO: Chief Warrant Officer can be promoted to the billet.
CSO: 1LT ... MAJ

No need to hard code ranks. Different nations and species and themes will use different ones anyway.
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 205
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #64 on: March 27, 2017, 05:54:20 PM »
No need to hard code ranks. Different nations and species and themes will use different ones anyway.

I think the idea behind all this is for specific roles to be one or two ranks junior to the ship captain, whatever rank he/she is.  Since different species and nations use different nomenclatures we may as well just go with rank levels.  I think most people start with LCDR or equivalent so that would be O-4.  If the captain is an O-4 then there wouldn't be an XO or any other senior officer post on board.  If the captain is an O-5, then the -1 slots would be available for officers at the O-4 rank.  Then again if the CO is an O-6 the whole gambit of possibilities opens up.  Leaving the minimum rank for a captain up to the player is a good thing, and allows for more variables as the game progresses.  Setting limits based on class, size, loadout, etc limits some of the flexibility in the game. 

Adam.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 672
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #65 on: March 31, 2017, 02:09:33 PM »
Thanatos seemed to suggest that 1st rank (usually Lt.Cmdr) couldn't be a CO of a ship at all since he started with the 2nd rank (usually Cmdr). He also limited the upper range to Captain. That's what I meant by "hardcoding" restrictions.

I do agree that the bridge officer slots should be connected to the rank of the commander of the ship like Steve suggested - XO one rank below, others two. That's fine and logical regardless of the theme we use. But placing restrictions on what rank in general can do what is counterproductive.
 

Offline Marc420

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2017, 04:53:32 PM »
Just FYI, but here's how I currently play the game.

My fleet uses what we call a "Merit Based Command" system.

What this means is that:
  ---  I set the minimum rank for all of my ship classes to be the lowest (Lt Commander)
  ---  I put the officers on auto-assign
  ---  in my current game, I set the tour length to 6 months.

What I'm hoping this does is put the officers with the best skills into the commands.  What I want for instance is for my best Survey commanders to automatically be assigned to the survey ships.   I don't really care what their 'rank' is.  I just want the best survey officers in command of the survey ships.  The only time I try to assign officers to a specific job is when a Construction Batt is being sent to alien ruins, I will find an officer with good Xeno skills to command it.

For me, as Admiral of the Fleet and Grand Pooh-Bah of all Colonial and Space Operations, I've got other things to worry about than micromanaging where Lt Commanders are assigned.   So, what I want is a simple, no-hands system that puts the right skills into the right places.  Or, in game terms, I want my staff and subordinate officers to handle this and not to bother me with it.

I'm sure there are others who get more into this, and I can see where this adds flavor to the game.   But I just want a simple, automated system that is flexible in putting the right skills into the right jobs.  In my fleet, if the best engineering officer is a Lt Cmdr, then I still want him handling engineering on the fleet's most important ship.  I assume there's some way to give him/her/it a temporary rank, or that in general that any complaints about his/her/it being of 'too low' a rank for the job are met with a direct command from the Grand Pooh-Bah of the fleet to shut up and deal with it and that any who complain or bug me about it are just telling me that they aren't really the officers I want in my fleet.  :) :) ;)
 

Offline Frank Jager

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #67 on: April 28, 2017, 11:07:33 AM »
With further thought (and another re-read of the fantastic Honor Harrington series)

Flag officers and Admin commands

Would it be feasible to have the same officer assigned to both of these and just transfer them as needed. 

Admin commands being static locations and flag bridges being the mobile variant.  This way a flag officer can have his a training or a different bonus spread across the system, as an admin command is land / pdc / space station based owing to the fact it's a bigger installation or has a larger staff (or war room or communications disk), but only applies his tactical bonus from a flag bridge, simulating the difference between a front line squadron and a system defence or training one.

It would also make the difference between "war-fighting" Commanders and "Planning" Commanders.   You could also have subordinate commanders on flag bridges assigned to the system you plan on getting the admin bonus from. 

I'll embellish if anyone sees any merit to this. 

Regards

Frank Jager

EDIT: Cleanup and structure.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 10:17:33 AM by Frank Jager »
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51