|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 30, 2015 6:04:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by emulator on Jun 30, 2015 9:59:56 GMT
I have to agree with Ger's initial post on the matter.
And as muc has people want pre-20th Century examples to be valid. Those were comprarable archanic times compared to the centuries that came afterwards where rules and regulations were more refined. jsut because it happened back then, it doesn't really mean it's going to happen now after several ratifications and amendments to those documents.
Also, please, for the love of all that is holy, take into account some species age faster than humans and some age slower. The chart is a HUMAN average, who's to say how long or short a Vulcan year is. or an Andorian one. The chart is a HUMAN average age chart.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 30, 2015 10:03:53 GMT
I have to agree with Ger's initial post on the matter. And as muc has people want pre-20th Century examples to be valid. Those were comprarable archanic times compared to the centuries that came afterwards where rules and regulations were more refined. jsut because it happened back then, it doesn't really mean it's going to happen now after several ratifications and amendments to those documents. Also, please, for the love of all that is holy, take into account some species age faster than humans and some age slower. The chart is a HUMAN average, who's to say how long or short a Vulcan year is. or an Andorian one. The chart is a HUMAN average age chart. Yes. The chart will not apply directly to Romulans or Vulcans, there is an offset for each species. We've listed some already, and more will be added as the topic comes up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 15:35:27 GMT
Well it is nice to know that people in the fleet cannot have a differing opinion that goes against the grain. I am sticking to my reasons and I am not budging. don't be confused that I don't think it is a good idea... I do but I cannot support this as being a rule that must be adhered to otherwise there will be consequences. the 6 points I raised I think do have validity but if you won't see it then I guess it really doesn't matter. Do whatever you want to do I am done on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by LoonyEclipse on Jun 30, 2015 15:35:57 GMT
I’ll throw my hat in on the topic of wartime promotions here, particularly in the sorts of promotions you’ll see in wartime:
The Brevet rank issue has been addressed already, but I’ll go into more detail about this: I think a lot of us, when we discuss wartime promotions are predominantly thinking of WW2, which is the closest analogue to the sort of war the STO universe finds itself in with the Iconians.(I’ll use the US army as a point of reference here, as it’s what I’m most familiar with as it pertains to WW2 promotions).:
1) In WW2 there were Regular army and wartime army. This was important: Yes, during the war itself, someone from the wartime army could, theoretically climb the ranks substantially (more on this later), but this was a TEMPORARY THING. When the war was over, they no longer retained that rank, whereas a career US military officer would. I’ll take my go-to example of wartime promotion: Major Richard Winters, 101st airborne, 506th regiment, Easy company- he started the war in training as a 2nd Lt., was promoted during paratrooper training (note: he had ALREADY completed his officer’s training by this point) as a 1st Lt., was promoted to Captain after Normandy and then to Major shortly before Bastogne. He stayed at that rank for the rest of the war. Yes, this was a very fast rise, but it’s key to remember: he was wartime army, not career (and a junior officer- more on this later). He declined to join regular army at war’s end. He was about as exceptional an officer as you can name, and yet he still didn’t rise above major- as the XO of a Battalion, not its commander. There was a substantial and fast buildup of forces for the war, and officers were needed to fill these ranks. This was the wartime army and it was natural that people climbed ranks quicker- they had to fill more slots than normally existed. And when the war was over, a huge chunk of the army was disbanded, and there wasn't a place for a lot of these brevet officers, so well...they went away, too. Starfleet hasn't had this gigantic buildup in a very short period of time.
2) Wartime promotions predominantly happen within the junior officer ranks- this is for a number of reasons, but primarily because it’s junior officers who take the brunt of the casualties: they’re on the front lines. It’s comparatively rare for someone of say, Lt. Col rank or above to get killed in the mine of duty, whereas Lieutenants and Captains ( ensign through lieutenant in Naval ranks) are actively fighting and in risk. Those in senior command positions (Battalion/etc. and above) are considerably less at risk than junior officers and thus don’t need replacement nearly as much. You will simply not see people promoted to senior command positions at wartime at nearly the same rate simply due to this fact. And if you ARE losing senior commanders at a high rate, you’re likely also losing your rank and file at a proportionately high rate, so it’s likely that there may be nothing to command if you GOT promoted. (Or, your officer’s corps is being purged/sacked heavily, but since this is Starfleet and not Stalinist Russia, that is unlikely). And, for the record, in the USN (which Starfleet ranked are based on) Junior Officer Ranks are those from Ensign through Lieutenant Commander (Source there is wikipedia. I'm Canadian and not in the military, so I may be wrong on this fact).
Also key to this is remembering that ‘Captain’ is both a rank AND a title. In the USN, people of commander rank command ships ALL THE TIME: frigates, destroyers, submarines, etc. Just not the big things, like cruisers or carriers or whatnot. So yes, your character COULD, theoretically get command of a ship by age 28 according to the scale here (Mind you, there’d better be a damn good reason for that), but it would not be something along the lines of a Galaxy class, Sovereign, or Intrepid. It would likely be more along the lines of a Defiant, Saber, Rhode Island, etc.
Also- you may be the best strategist in the world as a lt. j.g: that’s great! You likely will get promoted due to your skills, maybe even at a slightly accelerated rate- but you’ll also be ADVISING an admiral on those strategies, not putting them into play yourself. This is due the issue of experience: you might be the very ideal of a wunderkind: A genius in your studies, a genius in all sorts of things. That does not mean you’ll be a good commanding officer. Remember: an officer is in command of PEOPLE. You need actual, on-the-job experience to do things: not just for your own knowledge base (It’s one thing to know what strategy might work in a given situation, it’s an entirely different thing to put it into action, since the people executing your orders are not machines) but also for your SUBORDINATES TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY. No matter how smart someone is, it’s difficult to take the orders of a 25-year-old admiral (an extreme example) seriously, because they’re likely all sorts of book smart, but lack the real-world experience to put said book-lernin’ into practice. Yes, they need to follow your orders, you’re an officer after all, but you’d better believe morale is going to be a major issue- you’re smart, but you’ve never been through it, you don’t know what it’s like (be it the chaos of live combat, the needs to adapt things based on less-than-ideal situations, people skills, and so on). That’s something that only life experience can teach you.
TL;DR: People may get promoted quicker during wartime, but A) They're usually brevet promotions (or some sort of rough equivalency) and B) They're predominantly within the Junior ranks. You don't need to be a full captain to command a ship- just don't expect it to be a Galaxy. And you can be the smartest person in the world, but without the experience to put the knowledge into practice, that doesn't amount to much.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 30, 2015 15:56:29 GMT
Well it is nice to know that people in the fleet cannot have a differing opinion that goes against the grain. I am sticking to my reasons and I am not budging. don't be confused that I don't think it is a good idea... I do but I cannot support this as being a rule that must be adhered to otherwise there will be consequences. the 6 points I raised I think do have validity but if you won't see it then I guess it really doesn't matter. Do whatever you want to do I am done on the subject. You brought up points that were addressed with facts and logic. I'm sorry if you have an issue with that, but that's how discussion are run. Passive aggression is not an acceptable means of responding. Further such posts will be moderated. And if the fleet as a majority (which is how we decide these things) decides the proposal becomes a rule, all fleet members will be expected to follow them. We will not make an exception for one person who decides they are 'not budging'. You don't get that option. And I am done on THAT subject.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 30, 2015 16:17:23 GMT
TL;DR: People may get promoted quicker during wartime, but A) They're usually brevet promotions and B) They're predominantly within the Junior ranks. You don't need to be a full captain to command a ship- just don't expect it to be a Galaxy. And you can be the smartest person in the world, but without the experience to put the knowledge into practice, that doesn't amount to much. This was also already addressed in the numbers chosen for minimums. These are MINIMUMS, allowing for 'prodigies' and rapid advancement. NORMAL is higher. NORMAL for a captain rank is 35+. So 30 years old IS a prodigy/fast-advancer, etc.
|
|
|
Post by LoonyEclipse on Jun 30, 2015 16:21:59 GMT
TL;DR: People may get promoted quicker during wartime, but A) They're usually brevet promotions and B) They're predominantly within the Junior ranks. You don't need to be a full captain to command a ship- just don't expect it to be a Galaxy. And you can be the smartest person in the world, but without the experience to put the knowledge into practice, that doesn't amount to much. This was also already addressed in the numbers chosen for minimums. These are MINIMUMS, allowing for 'prodigies' and rapid advancement. NORMAL is higher. NORMAL for a captain rank is 35+. So 30 years old IS a prodigy/fast-advancer, etc. I know, I'm agreeing with you, just providing some additional context!
|
|
pg5k
Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by pg5k on Jun 30, 2015 16:28:03 GMT
Also, please, for the love of all that is holy, take into account some species age faster than humans and some age slower. The chart is a HUMAN average, who's to say how long or short a Vulcan year is. or an Andorian one. The chart is a HUMAN average age chart. This has already been brought up a few times, and covered, but I feel it'd be the responsible parties job to research a character before they play the roll. Just like you'd read a dwarf source book or a elf one before you start bringing up cultural points. Take Amber for instance, as a custom race that does live a lot longer then the average, from a heavy gravity world, and psychic power people. They aren't considered adults until 16-18, which would be 176-198 Terran years. But point being the guide Geri's given is based on Human because a lot of the Trek pre-built races do follow the human standard in aging.
|
|
|
Post by FoxCDN on Jul 2, 2015 1:23:18 GMT
Kinda feel Commander and Captain should be a little hight, I'm okay with it for the most part. Glad this topic has come up. Great job guys!
|
|
|
Post by theonis on Jul 2, 2015 3:29:53 GMT
It is nice to see some age limitation being discussed. About a year ago I put a post up for a task force attached to the 146. In that post, the OOC reason as to why it was made. I discuss ages as one reason. Link is only as a convenience for any one if they want to read it. mmostorytellers.proboards.com/thread/642/ooc-why-seartt-createdAs is, I still feel using the real life standards of current military is much easier to relate star trek to as the Federation was based on the US NAVY. I am former military my self, if only enlisted though. So where I'm going with this is the numbers above they are slightly to fast still. There is no such thing as field promotions any more in the military. You don't get promoted to lt. if your butter bar dies out in the field. The next highest ranking just takes charge. Your time in the military was one limiting factor as to how high you could climb the latter. The other was how long were you in said rank. An example to this is. You come into the ARMY as an E1, at 6 months in service you are automatically promoted to E2. Or if you get a wavier, the soonest you can make E2 is 4 months. Each rank has its own requirements, but this is enlisted at the lower ranks. Once you make E5 you are now a NCO "Non Commissioned Officer" Or Sergeant. Every thing changes at this point. I don't want to get any deeper into this because this is the Enlisted side. Officers are treated similarly to Enlisted but with their own twists as well. So, Using the current method of the military today. An Ensign could be seeing a promotion to Lt. Jr. Grade within 1.5 years or 18 months, same thing just said differently. After that though. It becomes 2 years to to get from Jr. Grade to Lieutenant. Then after that the rest is 3 years for each rank after. Flag ranks are held on a whole different standard and that is the out side of the scope here any ways. Using the math given a 18 year old who gets accepted at the academy would be seeing the captains chair at the soonest at the age of 34.5. This number here would make seance as to why Riker said getting to captain before 35 was a lofty goal. So seeing a captain at age 30 for me is still a bit young. Though, it is much better then 22. Thirty I could at least ignore enough to acknowledge the character even exist. Again, I'm in favor of this, but I would encourage a slightly more number of years older as the minimum.
|
|
ryftlord
Member
"The first lesson you learn is loyalty. The second is where it shouldn't be placed."
Posts: 86
|
Post by ryftlord on Jul 2, 2015 5:17:22 GMT
I am among those who would have prefered higher age minimums, but rather with the Admiralty ranks. My reasoning being that going from being in command of a single ship to multiple ships would be a greater leap than any that comes before, but I can live with the current age minimum.
However, I'd also encourage caution in where "real life standards" are applied in a fictional setting. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
|
|
|
Post by kneelb4zod84 on Jul 3, 2015 5:00:10 GMT
Not to totally disagree, as I'm pretty good with Ger's assessment, but for devil's advocate's sake, STO canon had established that captains were indeed fast tracked due to the war. Now, this was mainly established in the old tutorial (before it was chopped up into four or five missions like it is now) where you got to ESD to meet with Quinn after the Borg attack on Delta Vega where he gave you command of your light cruiser.
While you were more of a "captain" than a captain (rank), some of us have incorporated such canon into bios. How would you like to address that?
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jul 3, 2015 6:35:29 GMT
I should mention we have never used the STO canon for rate of advancement as fleet canon. The original tutorial being a prime example, since STO itself has retconned it in favor of the newer tutorial. Having said that, as mentioned in Loony's post earlier, you can be a "captain" (title) of a vessel without being a Captain (rank). And anyone who's incorporated the title aspect into their bios or backstories would be fine. And as we have done before with previous discussions which result in changing how we do things, people who have characters currently in the fleet that are within a year or three of the proposed minimums for their rank will be grandfathered in. I will note, though, so far most reactions I've been hearing have more been along the lines of "Oh, I didn't know, and this makes more sense, I'm going to change it..." even before the discussion is over. If anyone wants to do this but has questions on how to go about adjusting, I have no problem making time to help someone, and one can also approach the Mentors. As a further point, I would imagine in a fair number of cases, if not most, one shouldn't have to actually change events in the backstory. If someone's backstory has them entering Academy at 12 (yes, I've seen that in a bio) and graduating at 16, and rank of captain at 26...leave the events and number of years between as it is, and just add 4. Thus, enrollment at 16, graduation/ensign at 20, captain by 30. And I want to point out something one of our veterans in the fleet (RL military veterans, mind you) mentioned: that the US has been essentially on wartime footing since 2001. And they have hard minimum timelines for advancement even today.
|
|
|
Post by firebringeraxel on Jul 3, 2015 6:44:13 GMT
Not to totally disagree, as I'm pretty good with Ger's assessment, but for devil's advocate's sake, STO canon had established that captains were indeed fast tracked due to the war. Now, this was mainly established in the old tutorial (before it was chopped up into four or five missions like it is now) where you got to ESD to meet with Quinn after the Borg attack on Delta Vega where he gave you command of your light cruiser. While you were more of a "captain" than a captain (rank), some of us have incorporated such canon into bios. How would you like to address that? STO's Canon is; to be frank, crap when it comes to actually fitting into the Star Trek lore and universe that has been created prior. We play in this game not for the stories Cryptic gives us but for our own stories. The simple fact is the only reason the game does what it does is so they have a half-assed explanation of why you get to command a ship straight out of the Academy, not because it makes sense but because they NEED you in command of a ship for the sake of MMO gaming. Fact is yes, if the CO and XO, etc all died on a mission you might take command. That said it would only last till you got it home and then they'd give you a fancy medal or two and some commendations on your record, not give you a command a day after graduation. You are simply not qualified even in a war-time state. Doing that would get people killed more often than it would help. As for how to address those who used that "canon" in their character's back stories we are more than happy to sit down with those folks and talk about how to either A) change their character's age and service history to fit their rank properly or B) Change their character's rank and story to better fit the age they are played at. C) See if there are other possible solutions.
|
|
Claudius
Member
"Take it easy."
Posts: 38
|
Post by Claudius on Jul 3, 2015 7:24:04 GMT
STO canon had established that captains were indeed fast tracked due to the war. Problem with that is, its more for a game mechanic point of view they did that. So you progress in both rank and level as you play.
And from the gamestory point-of-view, its only your own character that fast track. You don't really see or meet other ingame characters in the STO storyline that fast track as you do(Think I only recall one minor mention or two). While yes, you can talk to other players and they tell you they fast track aswel, and they might be part of your RP story. They aren't actually part of the ingame story, that you played.
Honestly, from what I can tell, not a lot of people in the fleet are using the ingame story as thier RP story. Some are, yes, but not many. Else we would have a bunch of people that did the exactly same things, without being together with eachother or even being there at the same time.
Player 1: "Me and a taskforce of 4 other captains went into the undine hive and defeated Cooper and stopped the undine from attacking us yesterday!" Player 2: "Odd. I did that, with 4 crewmen from my ship weeks ago." Player 3: "Strange, I did that alone months ago!"
Normally when a bunch of people talk about having done the same ingame mission, I picture they were all part of a larger taskforce in a longer ongoing effort(which wouldn't be canon to how the ingame story is handled). But its a bit hard when they all did the exact same thing at diffrent times. Also if everyone went by the ingame story as a RP story for thier character, we would have a fleet of people who all went from ensign to Fleet Admiral in less than a week.
Don't get me wrong, not trying to shoot you down for using ingame story as part of what happend to your charcter. I've done it aswell with some small minor parts, however I modified it to fit better so others can claim they done it aswell.
|
|
|
Post by LoonyEclipse on Jul 3, 2015 15:02:08 GMT
And I want to point out something one of our veterans in the fleet (RL military veterans, mind you) mentioned: that the US has been essentially on wartime footing since 2001. And they have hard minimum timelines for advancement even today. Just as a counterpoint to this- there is a difference in the sort of wartime footing the US is currently in vs. the type of wartime footing the Galaxy is embroiled in for the current war (which to be frank, is more comparable to WW2): The soldiers currently are not nearly taking the level of beating that Starfleet is :it's a smaller-scale, lower intensity insurgency campaign vs. guerilla-based forces that have a technological disadvantage. The Iconian war is a stand-up slug-fest between the galaxy and the Iconians, who have a clear tech and strategic mobility advantage, thus casualty rates are far FAR higher. Again, not disagreeing with you on the macro level, just cautioning to not draw parallels of the current military situation of the US with the current military situation for Starfleet: they're two different beasts.
|
|
tewha7
Member
You can't be a hero unless you're rising above circumstance.
Posts: 141
|
Post by tewha7 on Jul 6, 2015 0:59:30 GMT
My only problems with this proposal are around the edges. The minimum ages are all quite reasonable, but some of the paths described are not all that is available.
|
|
ryftlord
Member
"The first lesson you learn is loyalty. The second is where it shouldn't be placed."
Posts: 86
|
Post by ryftlord on Jul 6, 2015 1:24:26 GMT
My only problems with this proposal are around the edges. The minimum ages are all quite reasonable, but some of the paths described are not all that is available. Care to elaborate? Bear in mind this is about minimum ages, not really about career paths so much.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jul 6, 2015 10:40:28 GMT
The only reason science and medicine career paths were mentioned is because they are examples of how one would graduate from the academy at a higher rank than ensign. If you do the extra study time, you get the higher rank that applies. If you only do four years, regardless of career path, you come out as an ensign.
|
|