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.