[Discussion] Divisions of TEST - Brainstorm
- Thread starter NKato
- Start date
AntiSqueaker
Space Marshal
I only accept two colors. Black and Yellow.
Devil Doge
Grand Admiral
Willem Default
Space Marshal
This is an interesting point. In theory I think the consensus would be that commanding roles should only be given on merit, but then I think everyone should be in charge of their own ship. I guess if you're on your own then you'd just be commander of that ship, but if in a group/fleet then you'd be under the command of the most senior officer. I think Tier 4 would be come into play here.
Let me relate something that happened to me in Eve Online when Incursions were the new thing to do. Through a friend I joined the top Incursion site running corp at the time. We were not small by any means but large enough we could do the larger sites if we felt like it. Sometimes we had enough people on for 2 fleets. There was more money to be made in the smaller sites by finishing them faster and going to a new one that popped up. Anyway I had been participating enough that I knew the triggers, the focus fire targets etc. Then some of our callers started getting a bit flaky due to burn out and one night I was just elected to be the FC because I was a consistent participant and people knew by that point who I was. And then again, and again etc. I was a backup but not an official backup but respected enough that I could call together a group to run the sites in the absence of an FC and do well.
This relates to my own written command structure in the way that I forseee small nightly ops handled by people getting together and forming up and going to do things on their own most of the time. Could be one group, could be several working together or in different parts of space. From this people will emerge who other people feel know what they are doing and that to me is.... get this...official/unofficial Tier 5 with my Tier 4 being my Branch Leaders.
This is just how I see my Group operating. It may be something completely different for our Combat groups because in those cases, who operates the ships in what role is far more critical. Circumstances will dictate how Groups choose operate and my own ideas may change completely but I've seen this way work well in an established game and don't doubt it can work here for my purposes.
This relates to my own written command structure in the way that I forseee small nightly ops handled by people getting together and forming up and going to do things on their own most of the time. Could be one group, could be several working together or in different parts of space. From this people will emerge who other people feel know what they are doing and that to me is.... get this...official/unofficial Tier 5 with my Tier 4 being my Branch Leaders.
This is just how I see my Group operating. It may be something completely different for our Combat groups because in those cases, who operates the ships in what role is far more critical. Circumstances will dictate how Groups choose operate and my own ideas may change completely but I've seen this way work well in an established game and don't doubt it can work here for my purposes.
Last edited:
Huegpaynis
Space Marshal
This is actually how I imagine a large number of our groups will operate, especially those who operate on an all-volunteer basis.
Op4ArcticFox
Space Marshal
I feel like it would be better to have an official and monitored chain of command for things like resources and ships, while having a more loosey-goosey system in place for our small scale combat ops. And from these we can choose and vet our larger operation combat commanders.
Outside of that for fleets focusing on things like trade and mining, having a direct chain of command is less a requirement, and more to help with organizational flow when needed. Maybe more as a POC for scouts and such to make sure that our harvesters don't get ganked.
Just my tree-fitty.
Outside of that for fleets focusing on things like trade and mining, having a direct chain of command is less a requirement, and more to help with organizational flow when needed. Maybe more as a POC for scouts and such to make sure that our harvesters don't get ganked.
Just my tree-fitty.
KIST- Keep It Simple Testies!
Great thread! Some additonal food for thought, 2cents-
To me, the verse and all the activities are ultimately combat centric. Forming a command structure around that premise keeps things simple. It’s all about missions. Creating them and managing them.
That boils down to threat mitigation and the level of force you want to apply to achieve each mission goal. Everything else is secondary. Getting things for Test, Protecting what Test has or destroying those who want to take things from Test.
The ‘Verse is going to be a dangerous place. How we manage force and its correct application in a timely manner will decide a great many things. Keeping this in focus and simple helps tremendously.
Force application can be broken down into 3 main fields. Strategic, Tactical and Logistics.
I like the analogy of the old SAC, TAC and MAC configuration the Air Force used to use. For example:
SAC- Strategic Air Command
TAC- Tactical Air Command
MAC- Military Airlift Command
SAC- Strategic Ops, Offensive and Defensive.
Large scale objectives. Major operations against other orgs or groups including all out war. Obtaining and protecting large “fixed” assets such as space stations, Bengal carriers etc. These are major assets which Test decides they want to have and don’t want to lose. Period.
TAC- Tactical Ops, Offensive and Defensive.
All minor operations to fulfill smaller objectives not related to the other two. These include intelligence gathering (all info obtained), recon ops, pirate actions, assassinations, exploration, etc.
MAC- Logistics Ops. This covers ALL commercial activity and the protection of all Test assets under transport from one place to another.
I would possibly add a forth group-
QRF- Quick Reaction Force. Ad Hoc group that could be put together very quickly for fast deployment to aid SAC, TAC or MAC. These could be a group of your ultimate bad-asses or whoever shows up and answers the call.
This structure keeps things simple. If a call goes out from Test Command for a SAC, TAC, MAC or QRF manpower/ship requirement/mission, you automatically know what the mission is basically going to be about and you can quickly decide if you want to participate. Overlaps can be done like a SAC/MAC where you know it’s a logistics mission to support a TEST SAC op. for example. I would expect this to be a run hauling missiles and fuel, etc. Missions would have a priority level so you know how bad the need is. Test Command would set who is able to create missions in the first place.
If you are in protected space for example and just doing your thing on your own, you may not need any help or support. But you would know EXACTLY who to call in Test if you did. Heard some good info in a bar? Send it to TAC.
Modifying the names, just playing around-
SAC- Strategic Aerospace Command (Or TSAC for Test Strategic...etc)
TAC- Tactical Aerospace Command
MAC- Matierial Aerospace Command (or Material and Commerce)
QAC- Quick reaction force (pronounced “Quack”).
Or…..just for fun-
K Group- (K for Keep) Strategic
I Group- (I for Intel) Tactical
S Group- (S for Supply) Logistics
T Group- (T for Test’s best) QRF
So that’s it. 4 Groups that covers everything simply. Personally I like the SAC/TAC/MAC/QRF best as it rolls off the tongue easier.
I’d also like to mention a quote from General George S Patton Jr.-
"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more."
I think Test should be VERY aggressive in dealing with any threat. If attacked, Test’s response should be overwhelming and devastating. Having a reputation where others know if you mess with Test you will pay a horrible price will pay enormous dividends.
Finally.....Pirates.
Pirate activities would fall under the same SAC/TAC/MAC/QRF structure as well. It’s just a mission type, nothing more. So I would make a special identifier for that, Like the letter “Z” for pirate activities and something else for non-pirate or legal activities like “W” I picked those because they are letters not normally used. Z could be for the end of the line, career wise and W for wimp. Whatever works for you.
So a mission with the header TACZ would be a Pirate tactical mission, for example. MACW would be for a legal logistics mission.
-END
Great thread! Some additonal food for thought, 2cents-
To me, the verse and all the activities are ultimately combat centric. Forming a command structure around that premise keeps things simple. It’s all about missions. Creating them and managing them.
That boils down to threat mitigation and the level of force you want to apply to achieve each mission goal. Everything else is secondary. Getting things for Test, Protecting what Test has or destroying those who want to take things from Test.
The ‘Verse is going to be a dangerous place. How we manage force and its correct application in a timely manner will decide a great many things. Keeping this in focus and simple helps tremendously.
Force application can be broken down into 3 main fields. Strategic, Tactical and Logistics.
I like the analogy of the old SAC, TAC and MAC configuration the Air Force used to use. For example:
SAC- Strategic Air Command
TAC- Tactical Air Command
MAC- Military Airlift Command
SAC- Strategic Ops, Offensive and Defensive.
Large scale objectives. Major operations against other orgs or groups including all out war. Obtaining and protecting large “fixed” assets such as space stations, Bengal carriers etc. These are major assets which Test decides they want to have and don’t want to lose. Period.
TAC- Tactical Ops, Offensive and Defensive.
All minor operations to fulfill smaller objectives not related to the other two. These include intelligence gathering (all info obtained), recon ops, pirate actions, assassinations, exploration, etc.
MAC- Logistics Ops. This covers ALL commercial activity and the protection of all Test assets under transport from one place to another.
I would possibly add a forth group-
QRF- Quick Reaction Force. Ad Hoc group that could be put together very quickly for fast deployment to aid SAC, TAC or MAC. These could be a group of your ultimate bad-asses or whoever shows up and answers the call.
This structure keeps things simple. If a call goes out from Test Command for a SAC, TAC, MAC or QRF manpower/ship requirement/mission, you automatically know what the mission is basically going to be about and you can quickly decide if you want to participate. Overlaps can be done like a SAC/MAC where you know it’s a logistics mission to support a TEST SAC op. for example. I would expect this to be a run hauling missiles and fuel, etc. Missions would have a priority level so you know how bad the need is. Test Command would set who is able to create missions in the first place.
If you are in protected space for example and just doing your thing on your own, you may not need any help or support. But you would know EXACTLY who to call in Test if you did. Heard some good info in a bar? Send it to TAC.
Modifying the names, just playing around-
SAC- Strategic Aerospace Command (Or TSAC for Test Strategic...etc)
TAC- Tactical Aerospace Command
MAC- Matierial Aerospace Command (or Material and Commerce)
QAC- Quick reaction force (pronounced “Quack”).
Or…..just for fun-
K Group- (K for Keep) Strategic
I Group- (I for Intel) Tactical
S Group- (S for Supply) Logistics
T Group- (T for Test’s best) QRF
So that’s it. 4 Groups that covers everything simply. Personally I like the SAC/TAC/MAC/QRF best as it rolls off the tongue easier.
I’d also like to mention a quote from General George S Patton Jr.-
"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more."
I think Test should be VERY aggressive in dealing with any threat. If attacked, Test’s response should be overwhelming and devastating. Having a reputation where others know if you mess with Test you will pay a horrible price will pay enormous dividends.
Finally.....Pirates.
Pirate activities would fall under the same SAC/TAC/MAC/QRF structure as well. It’s just a mission type, nothing more. So I would make a special identifier for that, Like the letter “Z” for pirate activities and something else for non-pirate or legal activities like “W” I picked those because they are letters not normally used. Z could be for the end of the line, career wise and W for wimp. Whatever works for you.
So a mission with the header TACZ would be a Pirate tactical mission, for example. MACW would be for a legal logistics mission.
-END
Last edited:
WarrenPeace
Space Marshal
You can join every division if you want. You get to decide how you want to play the game.
Sweet. So as of yet, there is no official divisions that are set up yet, just ideas right? And squadrons members thought up? (such as "Rock Raiders")
Sorry, sort of new.
Arrangingstars
Space Marshal
The only official division in TEST is the Racing Division headed by Shive. We'll have more in the future, but for now, since we can actually race and there are leaderboards for it currently, it is the only official division. Also, TEST is pretty free - you can play or do whatever you want in-game and as much or as little as you want, except grief of course. So yes, these are all just ideas for potential groups.
Grimm_Reaper
Space Marshal
I think a support division should also be present. They would include everything from medical, repair, refueling and basic overall support. I can't think of any division that can't do without support from stranded ships to ships needing repair to war support. Its also easier to send sos msgs if the support organisation had its own division rather than sending a shout for any available person with a support ship available.
Also the racing division could fall under Econ as sponsorships and other support with fall under their perview
Also the racing division could fall under Econ as sponsorships and other support with fall under their perview
support division's logo should be a jockstrap
I don't know if this was covered yet but with your plan for the Persistent Warship you mention on the Command & carrier division, will we have (if possible) different subgroup team based on region timing that have our team 24/7 in taking care our ships? Ex people living in Australia and Asia takes care of the ships during this time while the US team are asleep.
I wouldn't really have a solid plan in place, but it's possible we'll have crew rotations. I want to see what CIG has in mind for it before we do anything.
