v2.0.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Garfunkel]

Since a carrier might carry multiple squadrons, CAG aboard the ship is in command of them all. For squadron leaders, the best way is to use that example mentioned before - create a Command version of your fighter that's identical and tick the "Senior CO" box so that instead of R1 it gets a R2 officer commanding it who will then automatically become the squadron commander via being the most senior officer present.

[Droll]

Since a carrier might carry multiple squadrons, CAG aboard the ship is in command of them all. For squadron leaders, the best way is to use that example mentioned before - create a Command version of your fighter that's identical and tick the "Senior CO" box so that instead of R1 it gets a R2 officer commanding it who will then automatically become the squadron commander via being the most senior officer present.

But what rank would the CAG be? It'd be weird if the CAG doesn't outrank the squadron leaders.

[TallTroll]

By wet navy traditions, the CAG should be 1 rank lower than the Captain, generally speaking. CVs are also considered to be capital ships and often flagships, although that is partly because the CV has displaced the BB as the ultimate expression of power projection at sea, which is not necessarily true of a space navy in Aurora

[Garfunkel]

Since a carrier might carry multiple squadrons, CAG aboard the ship is in command of them all. For squadron leaders, the best way is to use that example mentioned before - create a Command version of your fighter that's identical and tick the "Senior CO" box so that instead of R1 it gets a R2 officer commanding it who will then automatically become the squadron commander via being the most senior officer present.

But what rank would the CAG be? It'd be weird if the CAG doesn't outrank the squadron leaders.

Considering that carriers will probably be your biggest ships so they will be commanded by senior officers, perhaps even flag officers, and fighters are generally piloted by R1 officers, there should be able room between the two for CAG to be higher rank than squadron senior officer. For example, using USN ranks in Aurora:

Fighter pilot - R1 "lieutenant-commander"
Squadron CO - R2 "commander"
CAG aboard a carrier - R3 "captain"
Carrier CO - R4 "rear-admiral (lower half)"

And you could always insert lieutenant as the new R1 and now that we can truly have 1-2 crew fighters, that will make even more sense than before, and thus save all admirals for naval commands.

[nuclearslurpee]

Not laid out explicitly in the actual change post, but I do want to point out that the change to short-deployment crews is actually a small buff to fighter-based races. Given how many fighters a typical carrier fleet needs, reducing the amount of crew needed eases the burden on academies that train crews and allows using a higher academy training level, so crews should be a bit better-trained on average. Given the difficulty of maintaining well-trained fighter crews (lack of Training-skilled commanders + difficulty of refitting fighters to preserve experienced crews) this is a good mechanical change for fighters - in addition to the flavor which many players have wanted.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Not laid out explicitly in the actual change post, but I do want to point out that the change to short-deployment crews is actually a small buff to fighter-based races. Given how many fighters a typical carrier fleet needs, reducing the amount of crew needed eases the burden on academies that train crews and allows using a higher academy training level, so crews should be a bit better-trained on average. Given the difficulty of maintaining well-trained fighter crews (lack of Training-skilled commanders + difficulty of refitting fighters to preserve experienced crews) this is a good mechanical change for fighters - in addition to the flavor which many players have wanted.

I did briefly mention it right at the bottom of the post

[Drakale]

I hoped for single crewed fighters for a long time this is very nice. This will also let my hospital ships be less crowded with ejected pilots after a large engagement.

[nuclearslurpee]

I did briefly mention it right at the bottom of the post

I should clarify - you did mention the reduced crew requirements for fighter-heavy navies; I am just highlighting the further impact of this in terms of crew training levels, which addresses a long-standing downside of fighter-based fleets. 

[Vandermeer]

@Fighter Crew Changes
Note for the formula - It can be slightly simplified to:

Code: [Select]

Crew = Round Down ( Crew * ( (Planned Deployment / 3 )^(1/3) ) )Since the calculation isn't done that often, it might not matter I think, but in case it does, this versions otherwise avoids one of the costly fractional exponential calculations, and also aids in oversight to see how the effect works.("actual crew reduction is equal to 'the fraction of Deployment against 3 Months' with the cube root smoothing continuing")

[Borealis4x]

By wet navy traditions, the CAG should be 1 rank lower than the Captain, generally speaking. CVs are also considered to be capital ships and often flagships, although that is partly because the CV has displaced the BB as the ultimate expression of power projection at sea, which is not necessarily true of a space navy in Aurora

Akshully, in the US Navy at least the CAG is actually a full Captain and answers to the commander of the Carrier Task Force rather than the Captain of the CV. Kinda weird I know.

On another note, how easy would it be to change the default starting age of officers from 21 to 30? If I start tracking officers when they are Lt. Commanders, it makes more sense for them to be in their 30s rather than early 20s.

It would be great if 'starting age' was something you could edit using the Race screen so every race is different based on how long their lifespans are.

[papent]

May we have an option to not allow an C.O to be assigned to a ship? like a checkbox in ship design or in the ship screen. so we don't have every promising officer assigned to the small craft forces or merchant fleets.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

May we have an option to not allow an C.O to be assigned to a ship? like a checkbox in ship design or in the ship screen. so we don't have every promising officer assigned to the small craft forces or merchant fleets.

That is already in v2.0.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12523.msg157284#msg157284

[LiquidGold2]

This is a minor thing, but on the new reduced crew formulas, you use "Personnel" for one formula and "Crew" for the other.  Can you change them to be the same, unless there is a difference I'm missing?

Glad to see the small refueling system; I don't use fighters often, but when I do I always have a tanker/fighter/FAC on all the larger carriers.

[Desdinova]

Steve, will officers without a relevant qualification be assigned to roles now? For example, will a terraforming base receive a commander if no free officer has a terraforming bonus, or will it sit empty? And will commanders without a relevant bonus be able to gain that bonus if they're assigned to that role? I know you considered giving everyone a 1% bonus in every field, but I don't know what came of that discussion.

[Neophyte]

Minor suggestion but I think the small refueling system should be renamed to something like "Small Craft Refueling System" or similar, something to make it clearer to new players that this is not just a smaller version of the existing systems but something that can only work with small ships.

(of course it should also have the 1000 ton restriction in the description, but just to be sure)