On Promotion

[Buzzles]

For the people who're suggesting new names such as using Veteran, Hardened, Seasoned and Expert all in one structure, I'd like to point out they mean absolutely nothing in terms of giving away a rank or skill as they're interchangeable with their meaning and where they'd be in the progression.

Personally I prefer the real world ranks, mostly because it's plainly obvious as to the rank progression as ranks such as Captain, Major, Colonel are globally used and accepted ranks.

That said I've no problem with something like Rookie/Recruit -> Squaddie/Private/Xenonaut -> Corporal etc.. as the start, and actually would prefer a Recruit/Rookie rank to be the basic one instead of Private (ie, I'd be in favour of shifting the current names up the line a bit).

Edited June 30, 2012 by Buzzles

[TrashMan]

You forgot Corporal Punishment

And Major Carnage.

And Seargent Slaughter.

And Major Badass.

And General Destruction.

And Rear Admiral Penetrator.

[Gauddlike]

For the people who're suggesting new names such as using Veteran, Hardened, Seasoned and Expert all in one structure, I'd like to point out they mean absolutely nothing in terms of giving away a rank or skill as they're interchangeable with their meaning and where they'd be in the progression.

Personally I prefer the real world ranks, mostly because it's plainly obvious as to the rank progression as ranks such as Captain, Major, Colonel are globally used and accepted ranks.

To you it is plainly obvious.

I couldn't tell you the order of those ranks without looking it up.

I have no military background and no interest in it.

They are globally used and accepted ranks that reflect a certain role and level of responsibility.

They are also the meaningless ones, as used in the game, because they in no way reflect the roles they are named for, which is the issue some people have had with them.

Might as well just call them 1, 2, 3, etc.

The alternative names suggested may not be precise indicators but after playing for a few hours you would almost certainly pick it up.

Having a generally more complicated icon to represent each stage would point you in the right direction.

[erutan]

I'm somewhat torn, even with my minimal knowledge of military ranks it does seem really weird to have as many sgts in a squad as corporals. I do like the idea of being able to promote a favorite soldier into an officer track (with an extra morale bonus) as it provides a large emotional and reasonable tactical element to the game. I don't think it's that critical - but it could be extra fun for those of us with big egos and a character name in game too!

One minor issue is that it seems natural that Xenonauts would more or less use standard military terminology, as they are drawn from existing military structures. It kind of saddens me to think of a bunch of people charged with being humanities last defense against aliens having a meeting about what to call their new ranks...

I feel starting with recuit for non-starting soldiers makes sense - e.g. all prior ranks are reset once someone joins Xenonauts (courtesy of http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/2218-On-Promotion?p=28057&viewfull=1#post28057) but there is a certain amount of re-training before one is up speed. Even a hardcore spec ops from somewhere isn't really "ranked" in Xenonauts w/o being briefed/trained on how to deal with aliens and their tech, then he's a proper soldier. That training can take place in the field rather than classroom, so the first mission being a near auto rank up makes sense as well.

Rookie (untrained/tested against aliens) > Private > Squaddie > Corporal > Specialist > Sergeant > Lieutenant (optional?) > Captain > Commander? You wouldn't have too many of the last two/three ranks, and the final one is kinda ambiguous.

Squaddie is "proven against aliens" while specialist allows for a bit of room before a leadership sounding rank.

Edited July 1, 2012 by erutan

[Buzzles]

To you it is plainly obvious.

I couldn't tell you the order of those ranks without looking it up.

I have no military background and no interest in it.

Sorry, I don't believe you don't have any knowledge on them at all. As we're both from the Midlands and exposed to the same media, I'm pretty sure everyone has an inkling of rank order. It's pretty much unavoidable when you consider not only current UK events, but the prevalent use of military themes in films.

I do however totally agree with you that the rank icon getting more and more complex is a great indicator though and one that should be capitalised upon.

[Gauddlike]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the truth is as given.

I am not from the midlands but I do currently live there.

I also have no TV (not had one for around 10 years) and have no interest in watching movies based on the military.

I don't remember reading any news stories recently that went into any depth about ranks, and if it was there my eyes would probably have glazed over until it went away.

I doubt we have much in common when it comes to military related media exposure.

You being 'pretty sure' that everyone knows about military rank structure holds very little weight from my perspective.

I know a captain is higher than a sergeant which is higher than a private, anything else would be guesswork or involve me looking it up rather than being blessed with your intrinsic knowledge of the systems involved.

I prefer the non real world designations over ranks, they have less links with real world roles but do the same job of telling the player who has been in the most battles.

If the military ranks are used it wouldn't bother me at all, they are just names for the experience level of your character in the same way as any other name.

The ideas put forward were aimed at making the system less jarring for the people who object to a squad with a commander and 11 captains or feel that the officer ranks should be less combat able but have other leadership roles.

The rank of the soldier would be maintained from their own military when they were sent to you, the progression would be purely in xenonauts seniority.

It makes sense to have a squad made up of all of your most experienced troops, not so much sense to have a squad made up of all majors while your privates or rookies sit back at home.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Gauddlike

[Kaguya]

It makes sense to have a squad made up of all of your most experienced troops, not so much sense to have a squad made up of all majors while your privates or rookies sit back at home.

How does changing the rank names change that at all, however? Privates and rookies will sit back home, no matter the title of the more skilled soldier, be it ranked as a Gopher, General or Elite.

Someone who has been promoted to a high rank has, with all the probability, a whole lot of experience, and with that, stat boosts. No amount of new rank names will change that the lower ranked soldiers will be left back at base, only to join once the higher rank folks die / get wounded.

[Gauddlike]

Because the whole point of the suggestions were that people objected to their squad being full of captains, for example, rather than the privates who would normally make up the core troops of most armed forces?

If everyone is a private then that objection goes away.

Some people found it immersion breaking that their command staff would be out in the field doing grunt work that people of that rank would not do in a real army.

The suggestions for name changes were to remove that conflict between what a real world commander would be doing as opposed to him being a ground pounder like any other who could just shoot straighter.

If the troops were all privates then their role would be the same, the only differences between them would be their experience.

Hence the suggestion that real world ranks be left alone and progression be purely to reflect their experience status, e.g. rookie, veteran etc.

Would you expect to see an elite unit made up of 10 generals slogging through the mud?

Probably not, that elite unit would probably have a mix of (lower) ranks but be elite because the soldiers within it were well trained and experienced.

That is the basic idea behind a lot of the suggestions.

The system was never supposed to make leaving some soldiers behind impossible, that would limit player choice in a bad way.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Gauddlike

[Gauddlike]

Maybe this makes more sense to both parties?

You hire people at Rookie Private, they then progress through Private, Veteran Private up to Elite Private as they take part in missions.

Anyone can make it to Elite Private, there is no limit on the numbers of Elite troops, it is purely experience based.

When you have a certain amount of privates you open up a vacancy for a Corporal.

The most experienced Elite Private becomes a Corporal, then progresses through Veteran Corporal to Elite Corporal.

Again any Corporal can progress to Elite Corporal because only the rank is limited in number, not the experience identifier.

With enough Corporals you will open up a slot for a Sergeant.

Once you have been promoted to Sergeant you can progress through Veteran Sergeant to Elite Sergeant.

That gives you ten possible stages with (I think) relatively easily observed progression between them.

Advantages over the previous suggestions:

-It holds onto the military ranks for those who like them but eliminates the higher ranks who would not normally be taking part in these types of missions anyway, for those who find that to be immersion breaking.

-It gives plenty of different stages for progression within those ranks.

[erutan]

I think either expanding non-officer ranks or replacing officer ranks for made up words would "feel" better, but keep it based on a traditional military rank structure. Having a totally new rank is more enjoyable than leveling up an existing one (private > squaddie = yay, private = veteran private is kinda ok), and given the real "officer" is the invisible player I don't think the system needs to be overly complex.

Edited July 1, 2012 by erutan

[Buzzles]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the truth is as given.

I am not from the midlands but I do currently live there.

I also have no TV (not had one for around 10 years) and have no interest in watching movies based on the military.

I don't remember reading any news stories recently that went into any depth about ranks, and if it was there my eyes would probably have glazed over until it went away.

I doubt we have much in common when it comes to military related media exposure.

You being 'pretty sure' that everyone knows about military rank structure holds very little weight from my perspective.

I know a captain is higher than a sergeant which is higher than a private, anything else would be guesswork or involve me looking it up rather than being blessed with your intrinsic knowledge of the systems involved.

Not trying to lay into you here chap as I quite like your posts, but you've gone from "I know nothing at all about real world ranks" to "I know there's a rank progression for Private -> Sergeant -> Captain and I could have a stab at the stuff inbetween", which was my overarching point.

I didn't state you, or everyone else had "intrinsic" knowledge of rank names and structures (I certainly don't), but that most have a hold of the general gist of things, like you do.

Hence the reason why I think we should stick with some real world ranks, as by placing them into the general order of things gives people a good anchor point as to a soldiers skill level.

Also, if you feel personally aggrieved by my post: My apologies, a cup o' tea and a hobnob?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Buzzles

[Moxar]

Actually, special units do have officers or sub-officers ranks. For instance, french fighter pilots are, at least lieutenants (if I remember well), as does naval frogmen. The reason is that those jobs are realy hard, dangerous and it's the only way for the administration to reward properly (financialy) the boyz.

Moreover, flight attendants got a rank too, because they (the women) need to have some authority over grunts during the flights.

Finaly, it's the same in several fictions. Every double-o agent, like Bond, is a Commander.

To my mind, it is logical that every membre of ou "dream team" might be well ranked, as they are part of an elite force of the Xenonauts project.

[Gorlom]

Not trying to lay into you here chap as I quite like your posts, but you've gone from "I know nothing at all about real world ranks" to "I know there's a rank progression for Private -> Sergeant -> Captain and I could have a stab at the stuff inbetween", which was my overarching point.

He has done no such thing. He never said that he didn't know anything in the first place. YOU said that. His exact words were :

To you it is plainly obvious.

I couldn't tell you the order of those ranks without looking it up.

I have no military background and no interest in it.

Meaning he does knows OF the ranks just not in which order. And he has no particular interest in it either. Nowhere does he say he does not have any knowledge at all. And that isn't even the issue, you just chose to focus on that.

Hence the reason why I think we should stick with some real world ranks, as by placing them into the general order of things gives people a good anchor point as to a soldiers skill level.

But the issue people have is that the ranks are anchored in the real world ranks but doesn't reflect them. the suggestion to replace them with something to indicate experience is to circumvent that issue. As far as I understand your whole argument is that "it works fine as it is" (and you don't really have any objection to "experience indication" ranks) but obviously people have issues with it or they wouldn't make posts like the OP.

[Buzzles]

@Gorlom.

You're missing my point.

I said most people have some idea of real world rank structure, as Gauddlike plainly showed by saying:

I know a captain is higher than a sergeant which is higher than a private,

Which is why I've said while I'm happy to see other new names being used, keeping some real ranks is quite useful when compared to having a string of names like "Experienced, Veteran, Skilled etc al" which can be taken to be pretty much the same thing and are somewhat meaningless.

For an example of what I mean, there's another game I know which has named variations of items denoting better stats, of those variations one is "Improved" the other is "Upgraded". Pretty much useless to use at a glance because they mean the same thing (doesn't help they switch around on other items in that game either).

Those types of names are things best avoided, and using clear obvious names is point I'm trying to make if I've not been crystal about it.

[Gorlom]

@Gorlom.

You're missing my point.

I said most people have some idea of real world rank structure, as Gauddlike plainly showed by saying:

yeah sure, I can't see Gauddliek contradicting or arguing against that t any point. So I will agree to this.

Which is why I've said while I'm happy to see other new names being used, keeping some real ranks is quite useful when compared to having a string of names like "Experienced, Veteran, Skilled etc al" which can be taken to be pretty much the same thing and are somewhat meaningless.

I have had issues with some ranks suggested (specialist and operative being the prime examples) so I can agree to that.

For an example of what I mean, there's another game I know which has named variations of items denoting better stats, of those variations one is "Improved" the other is "Upgraded". Pretty much useless to use at a glance because they mean the same thing (doesn't help they switch around on other items in that game either).

I see no reason to not agree with your concern that interchangeable ranks are bad... The names of those items certainly seem to lack progression in both senses. I just want to note this seems to be a worst case example. There are other ways to make it clearer then just the names.

Those types of names are things best avoided, and using clear obvious names is point I'm trying to make if I've not been crystal about it.

Fair point. Although you seem to have missed Gauddlikes point here. They aren't as clear as you make them out to be. Gaudlike said he knew Captain was higher rank then Seargant which in turn was higher then Private... You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that he knows where to place corporal, lance corporal, ensign, lieutenant, lieutenant major, warrant officer, colonel general and marshal into that hierarchy. As you said he has some idea of the structure. In much the same way you will have some idea of the "experience rank" suggestion after playing with it. You would learn which rank comes after the previous rank fairly quickly ( It doesn't have the same problem as that game you mentioned, where the items not only were inconsistent but (I assume) didn't change the name of an item the more you played with that particular item).

Granted it can always be made clearer, by the insignia design, by combining the military rank and the experience rank or whatever you can think of. That's kind of what we re discussing in this topic anyway, isn't it?

Maybe we could toss out the modern ranks and substitute them with ancient ranks? Legionnaire, decurion, centurion, preator etc.

Or medival army units? starting as squire and working their way through to mounted knight (or knight champion or whatever. It would be possible to use more then one knight rank as I believe they served in different positions. If they couldn't afford a horse I don't think they where in the cavalry )

Or perhaps a foodchain hierarcy? as you progress through the ranks you become more and more dangerous animals? Starting as a herbivoreas a rookie ofc

Those ranks wouldn't really inspire people to want the system to represent real life command chain. There would be a clear escalation even if most people would be more likely to look on it the way Gauddlike looks on military ranks.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Gorlom

[erutan]

Even if people only know where half of the military ranks lie, that's a 50% of ranks that don't have to be relearned in the game. I think the deeper we get into sub-units the less useful that is, but it still creates no further confusion than made up ranks and will make sense to a certain amount of people (whereas fake ranks will have to be learned by everyone).

Is there a good "in game character" reason for medieval or ancient ranks over ones adapted from the same modern militaries the staff of Xenonauts are being drawn from and familiar with?

[Gorlom]

(whereas fake ranks will have to be learned by everyone).

Doesn't that depend on which fake ranks are used Erutan? Are you sure you can't find anything you can use as ranks with a clear progression/escalation that isnt established military ranks?

Is there a good "in game character" reason for medieval or ancient ranks over ones adapted from the same modern militaries the staff of Xenonauts are being drawn from and familiar with?

is there a good "in game character" reason to use existing ranks when the game is clearly breaking with the purpose of those ranks??

Who founded the Xenonaut organization btw? It's not a collaboration between nations or a military project as far as I understand it. I allways assumed it was some eccentric CEO of an international company that did whatever he wanted. Included naming the ranks after his daughters mylittleponies! or his pink bunny slippers. What would be "in game character"?

Edited July 2, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gauddlike]

Not trying to lay into you here chap as I quite like your posts, but you've gone from "I know nothing at all about real world ranks" to "I know there's a rank progression for Private -> Sergeant -> Captain and I could have a stab at the stuff inbetween", which was my overarching point.

My reply to your post stated that I had no idea on the progression of those ranks, the ones you used in your example (Colonel, Major and Captain), not that I didn't know the difference between a private and a general.

Guesswork for other ranks would mean looking at the rank icon and try to place it with others, probably by complexity order.

My point is that it may be obvious to some at a glance what the progression is but that it is not as clear cut as you seemed to assume.

While I know a private is a low rank and a sergeant is higher I also know a rookie is not experienced while a veteran or elite trooper would be more experienced.

I find that as long as the progression steps are documented and not confused by other factors then learning it as you play is pretty easy, no matter the naming convention used.

That is also not really the point of the thread.

The point was that some people object to 10 generals slogging through the mud because the real world rank of general would not do that.

They have a point and the suggestions were to address that.

The same people who would find the military rank progression easiest to interpret and understand also tend to be the ones who object to the use of those ranks in unrealistic ways.

[petronivs]

I don't think anyone's mentioned this, but why not have experienced officers give strategic bonuses if they're kept at the base? I don't know how much work it would be to add an extra stat, or a bonus attribute, but getting a bonus to research, manufacture speed, alien ship detection, injury healing, et cetera should be a good way to keep combat squads from consisting largely of generals.

[Gauddlike]

They aren't really officers, they are however your most capable and experienced troops.

Having to decide if you should leave them behind once they reach a certain rank could make for an interesting and difficult decision but I personally would not want to lose my favourite troops to desk duty.

Much easier to not call them generals in the first place than have to work round the name.

[erutan]

re: In game character, I was referring to the tone of serious/grim that Chris is aiming for. Cutesy names, anachronisms, or zany SF ranks don't (IMO) seem to fit. Something like the following would work:

Rookie > Private > Squaddie > Lance Corporal > Corporal > Specialist > Sergeant > Lieutenant > Captain > Commander.

That's a semi-realistic but not officer heavy rank system. It seems a bit more like a plausible rank structure for the tone of Xenonauts. Granted there are some "fake" titles in there, but one isn't wondering how a pink bunny slipper 2nd class ranks up against a sparkle pony.

[Gorlom]

re: In game character, I was referring to the tone of serious/grim that Chris is aiming for. Cutesy names, anachronisms, or zany SF ranks don't (IMO) seem to fit. Something like the following would work:

Rookie > Private > Squaddie > Lance Corporal > Corporal > Specialist > Sergeant > Lieutenant > Captain > Commander.

That's a semi-realistic but not officer heavy rank system. It seems a bit more like a plausible rank structure for the tone of Xenonauts.

That still doesn't adress the problem... AS I understand it it wasn't ever that there were many officer rank titles in the list. It was that there were any officer rank titles at all. There is no chain of command structure, but people still feel that having 12 captains running around in a ground combat is off. And a bunch of people also feel that the officers should have some kind of arbitrary bonus applied to them since they are officers.

But simply removing them and sticking with strictly enlisted titles leaves the player feeling like the soldiers doesn't progress. It drastically lesses the psychological reward trigger. It's a rock and a hard place situation, plague or cholera (maybe not that bad) etc. dilemma, conundrum, paradox.

I feel that the easiest way to deal with these 2 (3) problems is to move away from the real life rank/title structure entirely, as I have no problem with alternative/made up ranks (provided they aren't taken from my little pony or a wow guild made by an angsty 14 year old that named his clan either "shadow deathguards of doom" or "holy lawbringers of justice". I'm not really sure what problem other people have with them other then that they aren't real life ranks.

The primary objections to alternative ranks seems to be either that "they work fine" (meaning you don't have a problem and don't see other peoples issues) and that you can't see any alternative as serious enough ( and can't imagine that you ever will see any made up rank as serious). But so far I haven't really seen any good reason for keeping them presented. At least none that has stuck with me as something worth considering. (If there has been I've probably just missed it and would appreciate if someone pointed it out to me and possibly also explained why it's a strong argument)

Granted there are some "fake" titles in there, but one isn't wondering how a pink bunny slipper 2nd class ranks up against a sparkle pony.

Yeah, those pink bunny slippers and my little ponies examples were hyperbole It's quite possible to establish ranks that makes sense progression wise without using modern military ranks still in use today.

How about instead of using zany SF titles use serious SF titles? They don't need to be Zany just because they are SF. In Space marine there's a position called "apothecary" that handles the gene seeds. I don't think that comes across as zany at all. Maybe not a rank exactly but that is beside the point, it's a made up military position that could just as well have been a rank.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Gorlom

[erutan]

afaik it's common to see lieutenants on the ground (not colonels etc), and captains aren't unheard of.

One of the main problems with rank was that you would have tons of sergeants at once extremely early... by putting officer ranks at the very end there will be a) less of them b) if you only get officers late game. By then you're an experienced organization with bases spread around (and iirc higher ranks are limited by the total amounts of soldiers) so having a slight imbalance of officers to enlisted would feel a bit more "ok we're bringing in our best" rather than "wtf are 4 colonels doing running around" or "my entire team is made of sergeants". You might have one or two commanders end-game and that just makes them cool.

I'm not adamently against made up SF ranks, but they'd feel out of place to me. Having a bunch of officers running around in XCOM was a little weird, but it's not like people couldn't enjoy the game due to them. Xeno is aiming for a grim alternate historical in tone so it feels that a semi-traditional structure works best. I do like the Xenokay mid-rank though.

Edited July 5, 2012 by erutan

[Gauddlike]

Sergeants only appear early in the game and in large numbers if they are set to be an early rank with high numerical limits.

They could just as easily be the highest rank and you can only have one of for every fifty troops you hire (numbers for example only).

If only the lower military ranks are used then it has a similar effect to using non-military ranks.

People familiar with the military may have less of a problem with a squad full of sergeants and corporals than a squad full of commanders and majors.

That is the reasoning behind the rookie -> private -> private (veteran) -> corporal -> corp (vet) -> sergeant -> serg (vet).

I would like another two non officer ranks that could bulk it out.

I'm not convinced on the elite version so I dropped it.

[Oktober]

Well there are several sgt ranks. Staff Sgt, Master Sgt, 1st Sgt, etc. The Air Force even includes Tech Sgt (equivalent to Army's Staff Sgt).

And allow me to refer you to my earlier posts suggesting that we include the Army's (historically accurate) Specialist (spec 4-spec 9, I think) ranking structure. I know some people have said they don't like "specialist," but it's a once-popular, and still-used rank in the US Army.

It makes sense to me.