Posted by: serger
« on: September 03, 2016, 03:05:42 PM »Some sketch-thoughts.
1. Any leader can operate with some number of _subordinates_, not ships, planets etc. I think this global law can be coded through some quite simple and "natural" rules, as those:
1.1 Each direct (next-level) subordinate is adding some probability of "lag" (failure of delivering commands or leader bonuses in this cycle). This increase can be level-independent, and I think a value of 5% for each subordinate will be fine, so operating with 6 or even 12 sub-units of little importance will be ok, but if you want to use your really valuable battleships and task forces properly, then you must deploy them in 2, 3 or 4 sub-units maximum.
1.2 Each rank gives an ability to operate with problems, that was delivered by some number of overall, lowest-level subordinates. Lieutenant will be ok with dozen of crew members, for example, and Fleet Admiral will operate with millions of crew members fleet. I think, 5-times increase of overall subordinate number for each rank level will be fine. Exceeding this rank-dependant number of overall subordinates will result in proportional penalty, so twice number of overall subordinates - is simply halving all leader bonuses, for example.
1.3 Contrariwise, the same numbers of direct and overall subordinates can be valued, calculating probability of increase in leader skills, so overladen leader will make more errors, but will train himself quicker. It must be some non-linear dependence, I think some fractional power will be fine. This rule can prevent from huge structures under command of most skilled leader, and the same way it prevents from empty staff structures, that can train officers doing nothing at all.
2. Normally (without lags of overladen) any leader deliver some part of his bonuses to his direct subordinate, and I think one half of bonus value (therefore a quarter - to next level of sub-subordinates, etc.) will be fine.
3. Hierarchy is quite stiff thing. So:
3.1 Any subordinate must be of lower rank or the same rank with closer promotion time. Unconditionally.
3.2 Those, whose leader have the same rank as theirs, must have some probability of "pissed of" event, resulting in those probable outcomes: additional lag, decreasing of training level or another unit value, and even resignation of this subordinate.
4. Each separating interstellar jump in any command chain is an extra probability of lags (the same way as in p.1.1, but lag probability value may be higher - about 25% for fleet command, I think) and extra penalty in delivering leader bonuses (25% too, I think). For administrative bonuses these values may be lower, may be about 10%, or it may depend on some tech level.
5. Any bonuses depends on stationary objects (infrastructure, stores, system traffic control local features, etc.) in the same way, as on moving objects (as staff, ships, laboratory samples, etc.), and that can be coded, if each administrator position will have some "knowledge of stationary" value, that will drop with changing leader or moving fleet to another system, and command position will have the same "knowledge of movables". Those values can rise depending on leader values (I think 1 month for increasing from 0 to 100% is great, and a year is maximum adaptation time for any lazy ass). This rule will prevent from shuffling leaders at will, even before battle or another burning need.
6. It will be great to see the same principles not only in fleet structures, but in army too, and in government administration (empire - sector [- system] - colony hierarchy), and maybe in colony branches too! R&D leader scientist can lead the whole branch, not only one project, for example, and factory fleet specialists can be used as SY administrators - and the same way, each one can pick the only SY, or all shipyards of colony, [system,] sector or empire.
1. Any leader can operate with some number of _subordinates_, not ships, planets etc. I think this global law can be coded through some quite simple and "natural" rules, as those:
1.1 Each direct (next-level) subordinate is adding some probability of "lag" (failure of delivering commands or leader bonuses in this cycle). This increase can be level-independent, and I think a value of 5% for each subordinate will be fine, so operating with 6 or even 12 sub-units of little importance will be ok, but if you want to use your really valuable battleships and task forces properly, then you must deploy them in 2, 3 or 4 sub-units maximum.
1.2 Each rank gives an ability to operate with problems, that was delivered by some number of overall, lowest-level subordinates. Lieutenant will be ok with dozen of crew members, for example, and Fleet Admiral will operate with millions of crew members fleet. I think, 5-times increase of overall subordinate number for each rank level will be fine. Exceeding this rank-dependant number of overall subordinates will result in proportional penalty, so twice number of overall subordinates - is simply halving all leader bonuses, for example.
1.3 Contrariwise, the same numbers of direct and overall subordinates can be valued, calculating probability of increase in leader skills, so overladen leader will make more errors, but will train himself quicker. It must be some non-linear dependence, I think some fractional power will be fine. This rule can prevent from huge structures under command of most skilled leader, and the same way it prevents from empty staff structures, that can train officers doing nothing at all.
2. Normally (without lags of overladen) any leader deliver some part of his bonuses to his direct subordinate, and I think one half of bonus value (therefore a quarter - to next level of sub-subordinates, etc.) will be fine.
3. Hierarchy is quite stiff thing. So:
3.1 Any subordinate must be of lower rank or the same rank with closer promotion time. Unconditionally.
3.2 Those, whose leader have the same rank as theirs, must have some probability of "pissed of" event, resulting in those probable outcomes: additional lag, decreasing of training level or another unit value, and even resignation of this subordinate.
4. Each separating interstellar jump in any command chain is an extra probability of lags (the same way as in p.1.1, but lag probability value may be higher - about 25% for fleet command, I think) and extra penalty in delivering leader bonuses (25% too, I think). For administrative bonuses these values may be lower, may be about 10%, or it may depend on some tech level.
5. Any bonuses depends on stationary objects (infrastructure, stores, system traffic control local features, etc.) in the same way, as on moving objects (as staff, ships, laboratory samples, etc.), and that can be coded, if each administrator position will have some "knowledge of stationary" value, that will drop with changing leader or moving fleet to another system, and command position will have the same "knowledge of movables". Those values can rise depending on leader values (I think 1 month for increasing from 0 to 100% is great, and a year is maximum adaptation time for any lazy ass). This rule will prevent from shuffling leaders at will, even before battle or another burning need.
6. It will be great to see the same principles not only in fleet structures, but in army too, and in government administration (empire - sector [- system] - colony hierarchy), and maybe in colony branches too! R&D leader scientist can lead the whole branch, not only one project, for example, and factory fleet specialists can be used as SY administrators - and the same way, each one can pick the only SY, or all shipyards of colony, [system,] sector or empire.