If we want legendary commodores, simply increasing the CR of the bloke's ship by one, to a max of 10, and giving +1 COMPOT should suffice. The commodore and an admiral cannot cohabitate on the same flagship -- so if an admiral is commanding the fleet, the CR increase is lost and only the COMPOT bonus applies. Simple, clean, and won't break anything.

Use a `commodore' counter to mark the ship with the +1 CR/+1 COMPOT.

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Doug Lamperts comment makes sense to me: "A Legendary Commodore is a rare subset of Commodore". In that context the rule as written makes sense to me, except for the issue of the actual counters.

On a completely separate note, I would still like to consider the issue of expanding the role of leadership into a more typical naval hierarchy. In short, an Admiral in command of some number of commodores. This would not mean fewer Admirals (those seem about right), but it would mean more Commodores of various effectiveness. They would not be created randomly as suggested in the above rule. Such a Commodore could do things like:

A. Add his own effectiveness to the effectiveness rating of the Admiral in command. It might be positive or negative.

B. Gives his own ship the formation bonus.

C. Does not cost against the command rating if leading a Battlegroup, or Carrier group. Effectively: +1 CR when leading a group. As was stated above, Commodores lead groups.

D. Makes the CR of his ship 10. Obviously this is for use when Admirals are not around.

E. Add his effectiveness rating to the compot of his ship. It is really such a small thing, so why not. The number will already be on the counter.

Yes, this would add much compot to battlelines everywhere and result much mayhem. This is what naval officers are for.

What makes an Admiral more powerful than a commodore is getting multiple commodores into the battle, and the ship of a commodore does not count against the command limit if it leads a group.

Example: A +1 Admiral leading: One +1 Commodore on a CV group, and another +1 Commodore leading the battle-group. That is quite a staff, and gets +3 to the die roll, +3 CR, and +2 compot.

Without the Admiral, only one of the Commodores could be used in the battle.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

What if Legendary Commodores (LC) were specialists of some kind where when they were created some kind of random decision (die roll) was reached that would assign that particular LC to it's specific trait?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 03:09 am: Edit

COmming in from left field and maybe this has been discussed but:

Seems to me a Legendary Commodore is a Legendary Captain when just on his own ship but when leading a squadron his skill benefits the entire squadron.

In a fleet under an Admiral he is following orders and while he may add to his squadrons ability to escape and such during the battle his choices are limited to what the Admiral tells him to do. As such he should add no bennefit to the battle unless the Admiral is killed some how.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 04:58 am: Edit

A commodore isn't a captain at all; his ship has its own captain.

This rule really can only be representing legendary commodores. All the other flag officers except for the fleet admirals (ADMs in F&E) are abstracted into the game already.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

Thanasis: Not in the SFU. A Commodore is captain on his ship and in a group of ships he is senior captain.

Of course I was refering to Legendary Commodores only as well. Legendary or not he still is under the command of an Admiral (legendary or not). So in a fleet action he wouldn't be as free to act and certainly couldn't tell the fleet what to do. His influence in a fleet lead by a DN (where there is always an Admiral of some sort) would be less that Legendary. Now, when leading a squadron (2-5 ships usually 3-4) he is in his element (or she is in hers).

When flying as a single ship he is just a Legendary Captain (not having other ships to lead means he doesn't use any of his Commodore abilities).

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Loren: For some reason I thought SFU followed real navy instead of STU on this. I stand corrected.

What of my proposal to bump the CR of the LC's ship by one to a max of 10 and add one COMPOT? That will mean that his (or her) presence is felt much more in a small engagement (where the LC is in his or her element, as you put it) but there is still some effect in a major fleet action.

As far as legendary captains go, those aren't shown in F&E at all, are they? (I thought, like crew quality, they just blend into the statistical noise in the COMPOT numbers...)

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

In some computer version of this game, it might be cool to track experience and have various rules for ships acquiring legendary officers of one kind or another, but it would just be nuts to do in the real game.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Madarab: Yrch. Nuts is right. Magnun gidden

Computer F&E opens so many options that it might well become an entirely different game...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Legendary Captains in F&E...I don't think they are.

My point about a Commodore is that he benefits would apply to a specific group of ships and if applicable perhaps to his lone ship but than that opens the door to Leg. Captains which the time hasn't arrived for that yet.

So, Commodores should lose (most or all) their benefits in large fleets lead by a DN since they are not in command of the group. If the Admiral is killed the Commodores benefits could come on-line for a limited number of remaining units. Also he/she should add to the chance of escape from pursuit in any case (where he is probably freer to act on his intuition).

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 04:59 am: Edit

So how about this:

- LC is aboard leaders (CC or one of a group of CW/DW/whatever which qualify for the leader rule) and carriers (not single-ship carriers} only

- LC adds +1 to COMPOT if his ship is in the line

- LC adds +1 to his ship's CR if it is 9 or less

- LC carrier group counts as 1 less ship toward CR

- LC on a leader with CR6+, commanding the BG: BG counts as 4 ships toward CR

- LC's ships (carrier group, BG if he can command it, else leader and two wingmen) get bonus in pursuit of some kind?

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

Tkinias: Could you define what you mean by "commanding the [battlegroup]"? I read it as being equivalent to "in command (i.e., on the flagship) of a battle force that includes a battlegroup", but your phrasing is so different from the one I'd choose that I'm not really certain what you mean.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

This rule is very low on my priority radar and given the counter shortage may get kicked to Nebulous Operations anyway.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Dcbutler: Things are always perfectly clear in my own head!

Actually, I was introducing a new concept which I really should have explained, that of a squadron or group leader. The idea is that the benefits of the LC apply only to the ships under his control, not to the whole fleet. If the LC is on a carrier, `his ships' are the carrier + escorts. If the LC is on a leader, `his ships' are the leader plus the other two ships of the same type which qualified the leader to be present.

If (1) there is a battlegroup, and (2) the LC's squadron is part of the BG, then `his ships' includes the whole BG. (When I mentioned CR6+ I was off by one; to command the BG as an independent battle force would only require CR5+, and with the LC's bonus there's no leader of any kind that can't do that...)

SVC: Given that most of the leaders won't be represented 'til NebOps, I think holding this rule for then makes sense. The legendary commodore could be part of some rules which make leaders something more interesting than just CWs/DWs with an extra attack factor... (This is something I'd like to see in NebOps with or without the legendary commodore...)

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Tkinias: I don't think there's any need to invent command structures. Just word the idea something like "if on the ship with the highest CR in a group (carrier group, battlegroup, one of those fancy groups from AO, etc.), the group counts as being one ship smaller for command purposes."
That said, I haven't seen anything in this topic -- as a whole -- that has particularly engaged my interest. How many levels of command really need to be represented by counters? Are we going to see Legendary Captains, Weapons Officiers and Engineers in the future? What need is this rule supposed to fill?

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Dcbutler: I agree that, as it stands, this has limited interest. (And Just Say No to ships' legendary officers IMHO...) That's why I'd like to see it coupled with more detailed rules for handling leaders (maybe in NebOps)...

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit

FWIW I posted my idea for handling leaders (in NebOps) in the general F&E proposals forum...

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:52 am: Edit

I have given much more thought to the function of the Commodore rank as the commander of a group of ships. The input of others has swayed me much from the original idea. I am calling this (much more limited) kind of commodore a 'Group Commodore'. This is totally separate from a Legendary Commodore, which is a different animal. There could be about as many Group Commodores available as Admirals, or perhaps a few more.

The Definition of a Group Commodore is a unit that commands groups of ships. These groups would include carrier groups, non-carrier groups, and the Battlegroup.

Group Commodores work separately from any Admirals, PrimeTeams, Command Points, or CWL/DWL ship types. As such, a Group Commodore should not provide any ability already provided by an Admiral, PrimeTeam, Command Point, or CWL/DWL ship. Neither does a Group Commodore restrict the use of any of the above, and may be used in combination with any of them.

The basic ability of a Group Commodore is to allow one additional ship to be placed within the group at no command rating cost. The additional ship must otherwise qualify for inclusion into the specified group. i,e. size class restrictions for the Battlegroup, and AdHoc Escort penalty for a non-escort in a carrier group still apply, etc... Beyond this basic ability, not much else makes sense.

I withdraw my older proposals as follows:

A Group Commodore would not have an effectiveness rating. Admirals already provide that function, and besides the Group Commodore only commands his own group, not the whole battleline. Nobody (even me) is ready for a Fleet that is always +2 or possibly better.

A Group Commodore would not provide any formation bonus because group advantages are already provided for carriers and their escorts. However, if in command of the Battlegroup, a formation bonus for his ship might be applicable, or maybe not.

A Group Commodore would not add any compot to his ship as that function is already provided by PrimeTeams. There is nothing to prevent a PrimeTeam from occupying the Group Commodores ship.

A Group Commodore would not otherwise effect command ratings. This is what Admirals and Command Points do. Besides, the Group Commodores effect must be limited to his own group.

Summary: The Group Commodore allows the addition of one ship to the group under his command. There is no CR cost for the additional ship, but it must otherwise use existing rules governing Carrier, Non-Carrier, and Battle Groups.

If SVC is even remotely keen on this notion, we can decide how Group Commodores are created, etc.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:33 am: Edit

Steverossi: I might be more inclined toward the group costing one less rather than getting an extra ship -- for some reason a 7-ship BG seems to offend my sense of symmetry. Maybe it's some latent OCD coming out... ;)

IMHO the bigger question is whether it is a good thing to add another way to add ships (and thus COMPOT) to the battle force. Is more COMPOT good?

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:19 am: Edit

- LC is aboard leaders (CC or one of a group of CW/DW/whatever which qualify for the leader rule) and carriers (not single-ship carriers} only

OK

- LC adds +1 to COMPOT if his ship is in the line

OK

- LC adds +1 to his ship's CR if it is 9 or less

OK.... (barely)

- LC carrier group counts as 1 less ship toward CR

WAY TOO POWERFUL.

- LC on a leader with CR6+, commanding the BG: BG counts as 4 ships toward CR

WAY TOO POWERFUL

- LC's ships (carrier group, BG if he can command it, else leader and two wingmen) get bonus in pursuit of some kind?

DEPENDS ON BONUS.

Can't we have something other than direct combat effects? Pinning? Raid abilities? Extra movement abilities? Penal-type ability maybe? Prime-team like options? I really want to avoid any more ships in the battleforce.

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:55 am: Edit

Indeed, the question is "do we really want another ship or two in the Battleline?" Hmmm.

TK: doing it the Group Commodore way means that the additional ship will either be part of a carrier group or the battlegroup. If (as you suggest) the Group simply cost one less CR, then ANY type of ship may be used to make up the difference. I was wanting to limit it to group specific effect.

DS: I am reading a consensus of ideas that indicate a desire to kill more ships. A Group Commodore allowing another carrier escort or battlegroup ship puts the compot up about 5%. Apply an average combat factor of 27.5%, and this nets an average of 1.4% more damage applied per round of battle. This is certainly less deadly, round for round, than other things we've been experimenting with. (those autokill, directed damage, and dual-starbase doo-dads)

You want dead ships and starbases? ...then do it the old-fashioned way: start by raising the compot 5%.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Davidas: `Way too powerful' as something common, or as something that a race has maybe one of (Feds/Klinks two)? (And they shouldn't be replaceable if killed -- maybe a roll of 1 on 1d6 each turn to generate a new one if one has died.)

Steverossi: My concern is also that adding an escort to the CVG is making it harder to kill...

The more I think about the whole LC thing the more unnecessary it seems, frankly...

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Steverossi,

Adding 5% to the compot by adding 7.5% to the total defense factor of a fleet will result in fewer dead ships. A ship can only add its AF to a fleet. It gets to add both its uncrippled and crippled DF to the fleet in a given battle round.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:18 am: Edit

DGK: Good point.

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit

I do not deny that adding an escort to a carrier group makes it harder to kill, and they are pretty well hard to kill already. So maybe the universe is not ready for too many Group Commodores. Sorry for the digression.

The real question in this topic should be: Is the universe ready for Legendary Commodores? (as the rule is proposed above)