wanwei Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 i was thinking along the lines of US Special forces where they have to be min SGT before they can try out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktober Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 i was thinking along the lines of US Special forces where they have to be min SGT before they can try out. This isn't accurate. The Navy Seals and SWCC both take applicants straight from boot camp (in addition to people that have been in the service for a while). The Army has a number of different units which fall under the heading of "special forces." Perhaps some of them have a requirement of having attained the rank of E5 or higher, and while I've never heard of such a thing, I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened from time to time. Generally they want their Special Forces in their prime. That means opening the doors to applicants from the ages of 18 and up, and unlike the Xenonauts, the US military understands the value of having highly skilled men in their youth providing the muscle, while older, wiser men command -- even though they're probably not as combat-effective as the grunts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 and unlike the Xenonauts, the US military understands the value of having highly skilled men in their youth providing the muscle, while older, wiser men command -- even though they're probably not as combat-effective as the grunts. In xenonauts the older men and women provide the muscle! oh yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sable Wyvern Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 As ex-military, I would just like to lend my support to the idea of allowing Chris to come up with whatever system he deems most appropriate, but replacing the real-world ranks with Xenonauts-specific terms that represent experience rather than position in the chain of command. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanwei Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 This isn't accurate. The Navy Seals and SWCC both take applicants straight from boot camp (in addition to people that have been in the service for a while). The Army has a number of different units which fall under the heading of "special forces." Perhaps some of them have a requirement of having attained the rank of E5 or higher, and while I've never heard of such a thing, I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened from time to time. Generally they want their Special Forces in their prime. That means opening the doors to applicants from the ages of 18 and up, and unlike the Xenonauts, the US military understands the value of having highly skilled men in their youth providing the muscle, while older, wiser men command -- even though they're probably not as combat-effective as the grunts. Specifically, Delta Force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrashMan Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I'd say yes. They are pretty much the worlds best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sable Wyvern Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I'd say yes. They are pretty much the worlds best. Rather than get into a pointless debate, I will simply point out that, even if Delta are the best in the world at the things they specialise in, there are plenty of SF roles that they don't specialise in (long-range reconnaissance, for example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktober Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Well the Delta Force (much like "Seal Team 6") is kind of a murky organization. These names (to the best of my knowledge) don't really apply to a strict organization within the military, per se. They're more a pool of assets which can be called upon for specific missions, the members belonging to various other organizations until they're needed. But the Delta Force specifically, such as it is, does at least recruit from the lower ranks. I don't know if they have any rules about what rank is necessary before being sent on a DF-specific mission, but they keep an eye out for promising young soldiers and can (and do!) initiate the process of vetting these recruits pretty early on in their military careers. Bearing in mind that generally you're going to want combat-tested soldiers (or sailors) in your special forces units in general -- and also that a very low percentage of special forces operatives will ever be sent on high-priority missions -- you'll probably find that the assets are generally going to be at least E5 or above. (Also, the kind of person who is going to be successful in a special forces environment will generally make E5 within 3 years of enlisting, typically.) However, you'll find plenty of PFCs, corporals, and Spec 4s somewhere in the early stages of getting in to the various SF units across all of the services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 This would be why I would remove the real world ranks almost completely and use a different method of progression. They would remain the real world rank that they were hired at but gain in combat experience and therefore Xenonauts seniority. Their seniority becomes less of a case of what their role would be in a real military and more about how long they have been with the organisation and how much action they have seen against the alien threat. You could have, for example, two or three (low) real world ranks available in the recruitment pool, with the higher ones being more rare. That would give you the occasional better recruit to get excited about. Not really essential though. The plus side is that it would bring back the rookie rank! It wouldn't matter if you were a sergeant or a private, you are still a rookie until you have beaten your first Ceasan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktober Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 Yeah I miss Rookies and Squaddies. Rookie --> Squaddie --> Specialist --> Operative --> Xenonaut? Something like that? How many ranks do we need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 How many ranks do we need? 12! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 There are currently 8 ranks but the original x-com:eu (and tftd) only had 6 including rookie (or seaman), while apoc had 7. http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Rank http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Agents_(Apocalypse) I would suggest that Xenonauts be one of the most common ranks in your force as the game is named for them. Rookie -> Squaddie -> Xenonaut -> Veteran -> Specialist -> Elite Or something along those lines. Might need to think up more if Chris wants to keep to 8. The Rookies will probably become Squaddies pretty quick, either by training or combat. The best Squaddies will be 'proper' Xenonauts. @Gorlom more is always better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktober Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 Yeah I definitely agree that "Xenonaut" should be your long-time, mid-range rank. Rookie --> Squaddie --> Grunt --> Operative --> Xenonaut --> Specialist --> Elite -->Veteran --> Chief That's 8. I feel a little weird about seeing "Specialist" that high up the list, but I could get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I don't personally like grunt or operative as rank names. Your squaddies would be grunts, there is no really noticeable progression there. Operative doesn't really mean anything much to me either, surely all of your troops are operatives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktober Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 Well of course this would be open for tinkering. My lack of suitable vocabulary shouldn't be too much of a stumbling block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaguya Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) I don't really like 'Elite' or 'Veteran' as a rank. They are closer to describing someone's skill, rather than their rank. That said, first 4 ranks could be along the lines of Recruit -> Rookie -> Squaddie -> Xenonaut Recruit is a throwaway rank anyways, since you can skip it with a 10-day training session, so there's not much point in wasting a "real" rank on it. Overall, I'd still personally go for Recruit -> Rookie -> Squaddie -> Xenonaut -> Sergeant -> Captain -> Colonel -> Commander with the pyramid shape from Xenonaut-rank onward. 1 Sergeant for 5 soldiers with Xenonaut rank (lower ranks wouldn't count towards this), 1 Captain for 2 Sergeants, 1 Colonel for 2 Captains and a single commander, unlocked after 2 Colonels. Alternatively, Recruit -> Rookie -> Squaddie -> Xenonaut -> Sergeant -> Captain -> Commander -> Marshal Like above, but Commander-rank would be limited to the # of bases you have, thus the Commander-ranked people would be "Commander of <basename>", and Marshal would require having atleast 3 Commanders. Realistic? No, but I'd find those lot more interesting than having just 8 "foot soldier" ranks. It's supposed to be a strategy game, not an all-out Realistic Military Hierarchy-simulation. IMO. Ultimate solution, however, have the rank names in an xml file... which they probably are, looking at strings.xml. Yes, they are. Edited June 27, 2012 by Kaguya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I don't personally like grunt or operative as rank names.Your squaddies would be grunts, there is no really noticeable progression there. Operative doesn't really mean anything much to me either, surely all of your troops are operatives? Funny, I have that problem with "Specialist" instead. Can we add the "seasoned" rank back in? I kinda like that rank... Possibly because it was used as a (mid) rank for the NPCs in Alterac Valley (World of Warcraft) back in the early days. I don't really like 'Elite' or 'Veteran' as a rank. They are closer to describing someone's skill, rather than their rank.Is'nt that kind of the point? That the ranks aren't really ranks but an indication of their experience (and by extention their skill)? That said, first 4 ranks could be along the lines of Recruit -> Rookie -> Squaddie -> Xenonaut Recruit is a throwaway rank anyways, since you can skip it with a 10-day training session, so there's not much point in wasting a "real" rank on it. What you say about the recruit rank seems reasonable... but something buggs me about the xenonaut rank. It feels out of place to me. Especially in the middle like that. @Gorlom more is always better! I want to be able to have exactly one soldier of each rank in a full chinook! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaguya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Is'nt that kind of the point? That the ranks aren't really ranks but an indication of their experience (and by extention their skill)? That really depends on what you want the rank system to be. In X-COM they were largely fluff, and the promotions were given pretty randomly, and at times to the even most incompetent of soldiers. As such, the ranks didn't always reflect their actual skill. What you say about the recruit rank seems reasonable... but something buggs me about the xenonaut rank. It feels out of place to me. Especially in the middle like that. The idea I was going for with that was that it's given to proven soldiers who have earned the rank. That way there's more of those "grunt" ranks that people were pining for in the thread. I don't have a problem with the current ranks myself, really. Just throwing stuff out :b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Funny, I have that problem with "Specialist" instead. Can we add the "seasoned" rank back in? Seasoned fits better with veteran and rookie anyway. Specialist isn't really a sign of a persons experience it is more of a role designation. Something more like: Rookie -> Squaddie -> Seasoned -> Hardened -> Veteran -> Expert -> Adept -> Elite You could always add recruit in at the start but rookie just fits better there for me. Overall, I'd still personally go forRecruit -> Rookie -> Squaddie -> Xenonaut -> Sergeant -> Captain -> Colonel -> Commander The suggestions were to move away from names that reflect real world ranks and move towards experience designations. It doesn't bother a lot of people but some find it difficult to use real world rank names without them relating to those real world roles. Edited June 28, 2012 by Gauddlike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktober Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'd remove "Adept." Too many weirdo-magical connotations. I don't have a problem with Specialist, for one of the lower ranks. Squaddie to Specialist seems reasonable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'd remove "Adept." Too many weirdo-magical connotations. Yes... we really should use "blood god" instead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 When developing these titles, don’t forget bragging rights. You can’t tell me when Xenonauts is finally released and more people start doing Let’s Play videos, these same people won’t want to show off their Level 50 GnarlyBadAssDude who was with the team right from the start and has personally seen more horror than Colonel Kurtz a dozen times over. Make the end titles grand. Something to show off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrashMan Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't really havea problem with the current ranks. Not sure why they have to be shown in front of hte nick.....when you give your squaddies callsigns it starts sounding...weird. Cpl. Rage Maj. Pain Pvt. Hawkeye Pvt. Bumblebee seems silly.Maybe to put hte ranks behind the name in parenthes? Like: Rage (Pvt) Pain (Maj) Ok, I admiit... Major Pain, General Carnage and Private Balls does sound great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 You forgot Corporal Punishment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I used to regularly have a Captain Caveman armed with a stun rod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.