Rank in relation to ship class.

[Artim Sequoia]

Going through the ship listing I cannot fathom any logic behind having low ranked officers in CO and XO positions. I can understand a Commander as CO and Lieutenant Commander as XO of a small ship running basic missions in known space. But having the same ranks in command of capital ships does not make any sense.

[Terris]

The ranks of Full Commander in this Fleet for COs are a starting point for when they graduate PF Command Academy. When they start the Command Academy they are given the rank of Lieutenant Commander until they graduate which at that time (when they gain 6 crew including the CO) are promoted to Full Commander. Think of it as a probationary period for COs. Being a Full Commander and in command of a ship for a few months then they are promoted up to Captain.

[Scarlett Pickern]

Forgive me. But it still doesn't make much sense to me either. Even with a probationary term to become a fully commander, it still isn't logical that a Commander would be running a full blown battleship. When you give a person command of a ship, you are entrusting them with part of this fleet. I am simply confused with the fact you don't fully trust them to make sure all your Commanding officers outrank those that "serve under them". I've been in more than a few fleets that had a similar system of going through the academy and working their way up through the ranks, they didn't have the tendencies to under-rank their crews when it came to filling chief, XO, CO positions.

Star Trek crews had seasoned officers leading the less seasoned. An under-ranked officer (With the exception of crewman like O'Brien who had the experience but wasn't a full blown officer, but he was still a seasoned officer) would never have so many subordinates. If an XO or CO had done something to warrant a demotion, it was usually bad enough that they lost their command status. I don't expect you all to change the present people, but perhaps you all might consider taking a look at how you rank those you are entrusting with your fine ships. Trust goes a long way to bringing in morale and loyalty. The morale here seems quite good, why wouldn't you all want more though? I am a perfectionist when it comes to making things as realistic as possible. Not even our present military runs itself this way. I realize you all want to make sure that people work their way up and have something to strive for, but perhaps something could be worked out that could drive your fleet equally if not more.

Again, I don't expect you all to change it all because a couple people happen to disagree. But I do request that you take a look and perhaps think about making things as close to realistic Trek as you can. By all means, give a probationary period to make sure they will be a good fit. But at least start them as lower Captains instead of Lt Commanders and Commanders.

[Joe_Rhimer]

But this is not realistic trek. It's a game, with rules crafted with that in mind. For instance, you're eligible to be ranked as a Captain after six months (pretty in common in most of the SIM fleets out there), but in six months, depending on the pace of your SIM, you may have only finished one mission, or not even one at all. I just finished my first mission as the CO of the Nicholson a few weeks ago, but I was promoted to Captain during the COs meeting this month, not because I'm OMG an awesome CO, but because of my OOC contributions to the TF and TG that I serve in. Rank here isn't just about your military experience. There's also the matter of ROOM to promote. Remember, once you're a captain it's all admiralty from there. Commodore, Rear Admiral, etc. Most COs in trek were Captain or Commander. Very few were admiralty ranked. So, due to the way the game skews ranks a bit, the way it's currently setup allows for more "realistic" trek, rather than hindering it.

As for ship assignment, while you're right from a TV perspective, again, it's a game and certain concessions need to be made in order to facilitate that.

Adios!

[Confusedfire]

I see what you are both trying to say at least I think I do. You are thinking that lower ranked CO's or CO's with little experience shouldn't be in command of ships such as mine a Ronin Class because my CO is a Commander...I've seen fleets that you have to be in command for so long before finally being able to command a bigger or better ship. It's not like that here and to be honest I like it this way a little better it allows people to choose what class they want as opposed to having to choose based off a list. Regardless ranks aren't a big important thing when it comes to being a CO.

Anyway you two are really the only two that I've heard anything about this from. So I don't know anything about a disagreement about a policy in this fleet.

[FruitLoop]

I think what she's saying is that if the XO is a Cmdr, the CO should not be LCdr. If I have that right. And in that case, I do understand the problem she has with it. If a CO is LCdr, their XO should be LCdr or Lt. At least that's what I think they're saying.

[Blackcat]

Really, we're playing a game. The ships are offered without regard to initial rank to draw COs in. You're over-thinking the logic of the whole matter. If we didn't offer the bigger/better ships from the start, then the COs would just go to another fleet that would be more than happy to give them to a new commander. Within reason, we want the COs to be happy with the ship so they will come and play with us. The more COs we have, the more opportunities exist for players to find a ship where they can be happy.

On the other hand, even when I was a Senior TGCO with the rank of Commodore, I preferred to have a smaller ship. Size just doesn't really matter or have a real relationship to experience or rank in simming. Experience and rank also have little bearing on how GOOD a CO is, I've seen people who were COs for YEARS who were horrible at it.

Several COs choose the ships shown in the series or movies, just for the "cool factor". Galaxy class, Sovvies, Intrepids (I'm kind of proud that this fleet uses real Intrepids instead of the Voyagerized versions the other fleets use), simply because they think it they are cool.

There are missions that are suited for different classes. Border Patrols for smaller ships, etc. The ships you folk are calling battleships or capitol classes... They aren't. Those ships are Explorers or Multi-purpose. They are powerful, yes, but they aren't devoted to war. They find themselves in diplomatic situations more than anything else.

It's not like the Navies we have today, where the ships are specialized more. With the ships the fleet has today, few classes are specialized (Olympic, Nova, Luna...) The ships of the line are not specialized, they are good at a number of things, but not the best at any of them.

[KejalBuris]

It's not just about the types of ship though, it's a matter of, all of the ships in the fleet are, within limits, capitol vessels. and with that comes a certain individuality and a responsibility for command decisions. When we have a person who is captain of their ship, why aren't they Captain from day 1? If the Fleet supports their right to command, why not uphold that in rank as well?

[Thomas Smith]

By default, regardless of rank the person in charge of the ship is called captain. I am CO of a small little guy, Viper. I am Lieutenant Commander right now. If it never changed it would be okay. The system says i become full commander when I fill my minimum crew requirement, 5 players. That's cool. I will receive a promotion when I finally get enough players and i will be commander. If I never rise above that I am still Captain on my ship. Besides, it allows characters to be of lower rank and be department heads etc. My Chief of Security is a kid right out of the Academy, but his department will only have four or five personnel. It seems pretty realistic to me. I do understand the argument of Galaxy class captain being ranked captain but having been all over the online simm world I have landed here because Pegasus more than most makes sense. It has defined rules and policies that are fair to all and not controlled by a few. I feel like here I can make a name for myself and it will matter. That is because the fleet is organized and we can have discussions like this one. Meanwhile, maybe there is something to looking into the rule but it is not a make or break issue from my perspective. I am just one guy and new at that.

[Williams]

In addition to what has been said above, let me point out something that we've always allowed in the past in order to help with the IC side of things.

In essence, we have always allowed a separation of 'IC' and 'OOC' rank, to a certain degree. We've never had any problems with new COs having the OOC rank of Lieutenant Commander for fleet purposes, but having the rank of full commander in-game to help the flow of it. Since the LCdr rank is usually an extremely temporary one, it makes sense that In Character the CO should be able to portray themselves as being a full commander in order to help with the story telling. Obviously this has limits - we don't normally like to see more than a one rank deviation in IC/OOC rank, so a OOC LCdr (whilst being called "captain" by way of tradition) wouldn't normally have an actual IC rank of Captain. But overall this allowance has generally been accepted because it helps to streamline things for the sims.

In terms of the ranks of XOs/crew in comparison to the CO, then the rules are already in place to stop the outranking situation you speak of from happening; an XO may be equal in rank to the CO, but no more (and this goes off the OOC rank). Department heads need to be at least one rank lower than the CO (OOC rank again)