Operations/Field Command (Brainstorm/Discussion)

[NKato]

This is a discussion thread to allow people who have an interest in fleet/field command and combat operations to air out their thoughts.

See, one of the thoughts I have rattling about in my head is the idea of establishing an Operations Squad that serves as a hub for strategic and tactical leaders (field command, basically) to get together, discuss tactics and strategies, as well as execute on them. This isn't limited to just combat operations, either. Field Commanders are still going to be needed for a mining or salvage fleet, too!

In addition to this, the "Operations Squad" would also be a good way to test rookie FC's on their aptitude in leading an operation.

One such idea I have in mind for testing rookie FC's is to give them an experience that I call "trial by fire". Put them in command of a TEST operation - the objective would be straightforward: lead a fleet, accomplish the objective. The FC would be allowed to do whatever he thinks is necessary, and after the op is done, those who participated would rate him and the scores aggregated into a final score. Subjective scoring would not be allowed - people who send in scores would be expected to focus on the practical aspect.

The reality though is that FC's will become distinguished on their own when they take the initiative. :)

What are your thoughts, and do you have any ideas or comments to toss into the ring here?

P.S. It bears noting that this squad idea is not the same as say, having an Admiralty or anything. It's more like having a strategic think-tank group in TEST - the information we share with each other will be valuable in building experience in each member's chosen field.

 

[Czechmate]

I wouldn't add a rating system. Even if your not supposed to be subjective you can shape objective views to fit a subjective one. Its better just to go on the opinions of other more accomplished FCs.

One thing we need to make sure of is to separate the two types of FC we'll need. We'll need an FC that is more of a Squad leader type. One who gets in the fight and actually participates. Then there will be the FCs that will be back in the command ships watching scan and intel data, directing the fleet accordingly. We should also not equate the two. Just because you can lead a squad doesn't mean you can lead an fleet and vice versa.

 

[NKato]

I wouldn't add a rating system. Even if your not supposed to be subjective you can shape objective views to fit a subjective one. Its better just to go on the opinions of other more accomplished FCs.

One thing we need to make sure of is to separate the two types of FC we'll need. We'll need an FC that is more of a Squad leader type. One who gets in the fight and actually participates. Then there will be the FCs that will be back in the command ships watching scan and intel data, directing the fleet accordingly. We should also not equate the two. Just because you can lead a squad doesn't mean you can lead an fleet and vice versa.

That's true about the rating thing. It's just an idea I had, and isn't likely to be implemented. And I agree with the parts I bolded in your message. This is an extremely important distinction. Due to the open-ended nature of TEST Squadron, everyone is expected to "discover themselves"; that is, figure out where they are really proficient in, and where they want to further develop themselves.

This will lead to a natural progression of leadership capabilities at all levels. For example, I have very little desire to lead TEST itself, but I view myself as someone who could fill the shoes of a field commander that would lead significant stratops, in addition to laying out strategic planning.

Whether or not I am actually competent in those fields, will be determined by my track record. If I find that I am not good at field command, I would relegate myself to a more manageable role.

Like someone said previously in another thread, humans are inclined to obtain power in any form, and that also applies to field command. The odds are good that we'll get some people who will try to get more, more, more capability, without realizing that they are grasping at far too much for their current skill level. Knowing where your limits are, and pushing them is a good trait, but making it a chronic habit is bad.

 

[Hitsugan]

One such idea I have in mind for testing rookie FC's is to give them an experience that I call "trial by fire".

I think the trial by fire is a good idea. Some people like to lead, some don't. So take the ones willing to lead and let them have a chance. If they prove themselves worthy a leadership position may be considered.

As for the Field Commander I think having one is advised, but its true needs will show over time. At first we'll need it to coordinate TEST operations and possibly handle wars and alliances (DEATH TO THE CORPORATION), but as the time passes other things may show up and responsibilites might be passed onto other members.

And I don't think a rating system is necessary. Let all members willing to command have a try, if possible with similar tasks. Then choose the one you think performed better. That is if we actually use the trial by fire.

 

[HellMel]

(DEATH TO THE CORPORATION),

Wait, is this a thing? I'm pretty well against them but I hadn't gotten my hopes up about open warfare yet.

 

[Hitsugan]

Wait, is this a thing? I'm pretty well against them but I hadn't gotten my hopes up about open warfare yet.

I don't want to sidetrack here, but yeah.

 

[HellMel]

For the most part I agree with what's been said so far. There's a big difference between leading a small group of fighters to go pirate hunting and lead a full blown fleet into an organizational war, and that distinction needs to official.

The best way I've seen new FC's handled was in BRAVE and it went kinda like this:

1. Random Newbro corrals other Newbros into group/fleet/horde, and they go do stuff, be it piracy, exploration, mining or ratting (NPC Hunting). Many times this was just to show other new players how certain game mechanics or professions worked, increasing guild competency as a whole.

2. If the FC does a good job and is generally productive, he's recognized as a capable leader, and might be chosen to lead tackle fleets in strat ops later, where they can further prove their mettle.

This works in BRAVE only because they have the numbers to sustain those impromptu ops, but with TEST being as big as it is, I feel like the same could be applicable, except that I tend to thing of the unorganized, inactive mass of TEST as Cats rather than Newbros.

Edit: I guess that means I'm in favor of FC's being put through the Trail by Cat Herding.

 

[DragonHeart]

I believe there is going to be a general direction our Great booty shaking leader Montoya will be spearheading towards.
And it will be up to our individual FCs to operate accordingly and accomplish this goal.
The operations will encompass a vast amount of space that will take a lot of manpower and co-ordination to secure.
Therefore, I think a hub for sharing strategic and tactical information among the commanders would be prudent.
I do however, think the political aspect of leadership and our ORG goals would be best left to Montoya and council.

Due to the current limitation of players per instance, I believe the combat encounters whether it be in space or land, will mainly be in small teams of strike forces, and the occasional large op where required.
Unlike Eve, where we could fly in the bulk of hundreds, this would not be possible in SC until technology improves to allow it.
Therefore, we who number in over 5 thousand and counting, will require many people to step up and lead individual teams.
That being said, the trial by fire is an appropriate term, most likely we will learn from our mistakes the first few times and improve as time goes.

Since this is a new game, and we do not know or understand how everything will come together, we are all rookie FCs until further notice.
There would be no point in ranking anyone unless its a distinction between the clear chain of command, ORG command -> systems command -> individual Fleet/field command, as of for now.
I'm sure in time, members will prefer to roam with some FCs more than others, due to personal preference or FCs capabilities.

This was a rather long drabble on how "I" see things ^_^

I personally love small disciplined ops where a skilled group of players would be ready to handle any situation.
I've always enjoyed leading a laid back but veteran group of players everyday back in Eve, to achieve goals and gloriously win vs larger groups of enemies with ingenuity and tact, and ultimately to have a fun time (soo many perverted jokes I've heard in my time, I still get the creeps).

I hope to make many new comrades and close friends in SC, for missions that are of high tier difficulty.
However before I undertake such a time consuming and important role, I will spend a lot of time learning the new game and thinking about all the operation options/goals/outcomes of every scenario in my head a hundred times, with contingencies for every enemy action that I can think of. Otherwise I won't feel good enough to take charge of my mates ships and lives.

 

[RomulusMinimus]

I really like the trail by fire idea, it's all well and good to write down on a form that you have 'tacticool (More like tactidumb amirite) experience'
But what can you reaally do? Can you keep eight people all shouting random shite in-line and alive as your being ambushed by pirates? It takes a special type of person to actually be able to lead real people in real time when they all have their own opinions and are usually all shouting at you. So in short, I fully agree with trial by fire, it should help to weed out those who can't actually lead

 

[Horus Taber]

I like the idea in general especially the noticing of needed leadership for mining. I know in EvE there would be OPs that would occur for mining but I don't think they were ever taken very seriously as the the PvP fleets were taken...given mining was not even close to the fidelity it will be in SC but I digress...My point being is that it is nice to see that mining is actually starting to be viewed as not only an entertaining venture in SC, but will also require a lot more hands on and tactical prowess than in any game I have played yet. Looking forward to this and willing to help where I can :-)

 

[LaChance]

I myself plan on spending quite a while mining...

But Just a thought: I think the "Trial by Fire" is a good idea for grooming prospective Field Commanders to be able to move and handle large fleets.

But as far as Wing and Squadron leaders go...I think they should perhaps come up in a more intimate setting. These are going to be players that are focused on leading smaller groups after all. I'm still kind of new, so I don't know if this is a thing or not in TEST, but is there a "Flight School" for new pilots? Perhaps a crash course for new fighters could be offered as well as a training program for those that want to lead squadrons under the tutelage of proven Squadron leaders.

 

[RipVanDan]

Perhaps a crash course for new fighters could be offered

I could teach that course. Wait are you talking spaceship crash or pc crash? Meh, I could teach them both.

 

[Black Sunder]

I like the idea in general especially the noticing of needed leadership for mining. I know in EvE there would be OPs that would occur for mining but I don't think they were ever taken very seriously as the the PvP fleets were taken...given mining was not even close to the fidelity it will be in SC but I digress...My point being is that it is nice to see that mining is actually starting to be viewed as not only an entertaining venture in SC, but will also require a lot more hands on and tactical prowess than in any game I have played yet. Looking forward to this and willing to help where I can :)

At least when I played Eve and we had a bunch of miners on(myself, friends + alts) we were very lax about it and only really needed to worry about cargohold capacity filling up before having the Orca go back to dump. The fact in SC that your ship could get blown up if you're hitting a rock too hard and not focusing leads me to believe you'll need actual hands on leadership for a Mining/Salvage/Reclamation Op like you would in a pvp setting as NKato stated.

I imagine that on the super large industry ops it will be very interesting when the whole Squadron comes together for some purpose.

 

[Horus Taber]

At least when I played Eve and we had a bunch of miners on(myself, friends + alts) we were very lax about it and only really needed to worry about cargohold capacity filling up before having the Orca go back to dump. The fact in SC that your ship could get blown up if you're hitting a rock too hard and not focusing leads me to believe you'll need actual hands on leadership for a Mining/Salvage/Reclamation Op like you would in a pvp setting as NKato stated.

I imagine that on the super large industry ops it will be very interesting when the whole Squadron comes together for some purpose.

Definitely, that is one thing I am very excited about. To see multiple Orions along with a decent pvp fleet of varying ships as well as maybe a few hauling ships will be quite a sight. It will also be nail biting especially our first few times cause one wrong turn or someone putting too much energy into an asteroid could spell disaster for the fleet. With that said though, I'm pretty sure we can look forward to the ops being very lucrative once we get things down to a science.

 

[ThomSirveaux]

Okay, I promise to read through all of this sometime soon, but I am totally interested in fleet command. I've watched the movie Battleship no less than 30 times and have memorized the abbreviated works of that Sunny guy.

(Though, in all seriousness, I enjoy tactics.)

 

[Kahoshi]

This thread seems a bit... dead, so necromancy!

Since I first watched the original trailer and saw the slow pass of the Bengal, I could not wait to get into the game and command capital ships. When I RP, I write an admiral. My favorite book series are about space navies. It's pretty much my favorite thing to do. And what I plan to work toward the moment the PU launches.

 

[ROBINSON]

Can't beat a good macro though! No harm in continuing the conversation.

My two cents on this is that structure of military organisation will come heavily down to the how the game actually plays. We have a decent idea of the running of the battle instances, etc. but this could change and this will affect exactly who can be in that area to fight and who can't.

My main worry here is over complicating the orgnaisation, I would like to see focus is layed mainly on the fleet leadership. We can easily reference modern military's for an easy structure.

Personally I would like to see the following, in regards structure I am going to losely base this on rough army structures;

Fleet Admirial (change to funnier name): This would be the head military position that I would hope is involved with the leaders of our group.

Fleet Commanders ( Platoon Commander): These are the overall commanders that are directly involved in battles, they take their direction from the Fleet Admirial.

Wing Commanders (Squad Leaders): This position could take many forms, it could be a group of fighters which the Wing Commander is part of or it could be that the Wing Commander is on a C&C ship directly those under them from there.

Expanstion would be from the ground up, so you add more Wind Commanders when needed, FC's etc.

FPS

Now this brings its own issues, technically if the main function is ship boarding and incertions into stations. Then small squad tactics in CQB is going to be key. How these troops will operate in regards to command should be simpified as well - have them directly report under the Fleet Commanders while they have their own Battle Commanders (Squad Leaders) in charges of the guys on the ground.

 

[Kersakov]

I really like this idea and want to get into tactics/strategy at a minimum, maybe command myself too if I'm up to it (The Royal Navy thinks I am at least...).

I think its a good idea but important to note that in an org like TEST it's a bit much to go right down to Squad commanders, even for TEST specific ops. Say we're invading a space station or whatever and call for TEST PvPers, I would expect groups of TEST friends to turn up and already have their own mini-command and tactical style from their gaming time as opposed to expecting us to assign a Squad Commander to them.
I can see a think-tank or FC being there though to direct the squads on where to board, when to board, what weapons to take etc.

In a casual org like TEST I think people will be more receptive to this concept; it allows those of us that want to really imerse ourselves into TEST strategy to do so but then most of our members to phase in and out of TEST ops at will whilst still keeping their playgroup and style consistent.

 

[ROBINSON]

Waiting for a set squad to turn up will probably have more problems than solutions. All I am suggesting is a structure where there will be a handful of people who have a job to step up and lead. I do like the idea of having it more flexible so if you do have someone stepping up they can do so.

Regards Fleet Commanders and higher then these should be dedicated roles, of course it will be wise to still allow people to try out at FC level but when you are potentially talking about that person being in direct responseibility for a large group of folk, it may be wise to ease someone into that role.

I do like the idea of small groups getting together to do their own thing, be it a bunch of guys wanting to be all mil sim about FPS (my interest) or a group of fighter pilots. These groups should be encourged as their own self dedication will be best for all - FC's will then have a honed weapon to depoly and trust by name.