Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: December 31, 2020, 01:57:36 PM »Sure, I am away but when I am back I'll look into it and see what I can do.
Please include details.
Please include details.
Your program is exactly what look for honestly. Its a perfect fit to Aurora. I just wish i didnt have to contend w/elections in my Federal Monarchy that relies upon the Throne first, and the Estate's Assembly second. But its fine. I manage.
Edit: I notice higher up in the thread you mention that a commander in a higher post wouldn't give orders to an admiral in a lower one - who is saying that in that RP universe that's what's happening? Maybe the commander is just in an office organizing various paperwork and notifying the admirals "under" him about information/intelligence that they might need to give their orders. Maybe the commander is just doing administrative stuff (cuz you know... admin command) while the admirals are further in the field managing their actual navy and doing the more involved stuff like issuing actual orders.
This is actually one thing we lost from VB6 which was the ability to have various admin positions in a fleet HQ. I'd love to see that come back and I think it would give us a lot of the RP potential some in this thread are looking for. However with the current admin command system I'm not sure Steve would see a place for that old feature.
Edit: I notice higher up in the thread you mention that a commander in a higher post wouldn't give orders to an admiral in a lower one - who is saying that in that RP universe that's what's happening? Maybe the commander is just in an office organizing various paperwork and notifying the admirals "under" him about information/intelligence that they might need to give their orders. Maybe the commander is just doing administrative stuff (cuz you know... admin command) while the admirals are further in the field managing their actual navy and doing the more involved stuff like issuing actual orders.
It seems like you guys are defending an annoying constraint that doesn't really do anything of value, and I'm not sure why.
Could you explain more what you mean by this? In my mind at least, this isn't an "annoying" constraint but rather a very reasonable and realistic rule - you don't put junior officers in command of senior officers. That seems as sensible to me as the idea that scientists should be more skilled in their specific discipline than in "general science" - and while we see many complaints about the game spawning the player race with 17 biologists and zero propulsion specialists, no one is saying we should scrap that particular constraint.
I'm curious what it is about the naval admin rank system that suggests it "doesn't really do anything of value" in a game tailored to extreme detail and realism nerds, when literally every large, organized military ever has a fairly well-established rank system based on the tenet that superior officers command junior officers.
It's also worth noting, on a game-mechanics note, that removing the rank restriction would allow infinite stacking of admin commands, leading to a gamey approach of putting your entire navy under 100 nested admin commands and getting the command bonuses from 100 skilled commanders. The rank restriction is far more realistic - and far less arbitrary - than (say) limiting admin command nesting to N levels.
It seems like you guys are defending an annoying constraint that doesn't really do anything of value, and I'm not sure why.
You can use SM to promote that 2nd lieutenant to run the whole space navy.
Why would you assign an admiral to run a survey ship in the first place? And if you must do it for story purposes, you can assign that fleet directly to the main admin command and call it a day since clearly, it is some sort of unique and special case. A workaround exists, no need to mess up an existing system for such a niche request.
Additionally, I don't see this as a niche request. Almost every facet of Aurora seems to include a very high level of control for the player. From the size and function of a ship, to the strength and outfitting of even the smallest ground unit, to the name and company of a single component. It goes on. I would say, the ability to tailor your empire, federation, or republic, to your whim, is at the very heart of Aurora.
Aurora offers very high control and customization, but usually within the bounds of realistic (at least, in a sense) constraints. These constraints provide interesting problems for players to solve in order to develop effective ships, formations, doctrines, colonies, and so on. In this sense having meaningful constraints is what drives meaningful gameplay. A high level of player control is not synonymous with removing the constraints on that control.
In this sense, the constraints on ranks in a command hierarchy are both realistic (in no real-world navy would an Admiral ever be assigned to take orders from a Commander, for instance - it may happen in a situation, but the chain of command is never set up this way) and introduce an interesting set of decisions for the player to make in terms of how to allocate their leaders to develop an effective command hierarchy. Therefore, meaningful gameplay results from realistic constraints until the auto-assign frells up your command hierarchy because it thinks your survey ship is a freighter...
I simply don't see how it adds anything to gameplay, aside from supporting some very strange RP idea in which an Admiral is somehow under the command of a Commander, to remove the rank restrictions from the naval HQ hierarchy, and I certainly don't see Steve ever making this change although I could certainly be wrong.
Additionally, I don't see this as a niche request. Almost every facet of Aurora seems to include a very high level of control for the player. From the size and function of a ship, to the strength and outfitting of even the smallest ground unit, to the name and company of a single component. It goes on. I would say, the ability to tailor your empire, federation, or republic, to your whim, is at the very heart of Aurora.