Military ranks

[Gauddlike]

Yeah there were lots of suggestions for training and promotion.

Chris was of the opinion that it didn't add anything but a bit of extra micro management if I recall correctly.

If the game tracks your combat experience anyway might as well just use that.

When a new higher rank opens up it goes to the person at the next lowest rank who has the most combat xp.

When you get promoted your xp resets to the minimum for that rank then starts to build up again.

That should mean that your most used troops end up as the higher ranks rather than someone you only ever used once.

It should also mean that the higher ranks are filled with people who have higher stats.

The rank is a decent guide to who you play the most and who are your better troops.

I don't care about accurate representations of command structures with the proper number of each rank to reflect a certain nations armed forces or any of that sort of thing.

This isn't a command structure simulator, it is a game.

The ranks provide feedback on soldier advancement.

You could just as easily call them levels if you feel that having real world rank names means they should reflect real world military structure.

[War Games]

Has anyone floated the idea of requiring an "OCS" training course to advance a soldier to officer rank?

I proposed this idea...

[Gauddlike]

I was referring to an old post that went into many pages of ideas about training and promotion.

Ah found it, this is an update on it from October last year.

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/23-Training-Summary

[Gorlom]

I proposed this idea...

Do you mean support the idea? I'm wondering because as far as I can tell your previous posts has been talking about promoting soldiers that has successfully lead missions, rather than sending soldiers on training courses.

Edit: no, wait. You did acctually suggest it in the first post on page 7. I was confused by a later post that was talking about officer promotions, not promotion to officer.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gauddlike]

It was proposed in the middle of last year as well, by Gazz I think.

Quick forum search should find that info.

[War Games]

It should also mean that the higher ranks are filled with people who have higher stats.

In the end, will get a number of soldiers in the rank of colonel to 15 pieces ...

Unit officers of high rank.

You said that the - this is just a game, not a military management.

Such an idea is not well-Completed in any game. So i proposed this idea. If accept your idea, you can just do refuse ranks because they will only display the characteristics of the soldiers.

Awarding medals - is also part of the military management.

If the authors have decided to implement this idea, why not make it interesting by adding a good military structure. For those players who appreciates this.

I would like to hear menie developers at my suggestion, unless of course they find it - worthy of attention.

Sorry for my bad english, i'm used a translator.

[War Games]

It was proposed in the middle of last year as well, by Gazz I think. Quick forum search should find that info.

I proposed this idea in the form in which it described in the first post of this topic.

The idea is not new but in the form in which it is offered by me - it is still my suggestion.

[War Games]

Edit: no, wait. You did acctually suggest it in the first post on page 7. I was confused by a later post that was talking about officer promotions, not promotion to officer.

I offered to raise solider to the officer ranks through special courses, but of course then you can offer more interesting idea.

[Gorlom]

If the authors have decided to implement this idea, why not make it interesting by adding a good military structure. For those players who appreciates this.

Sorry for my bad english, i'm used a translator.

1) It takes away resources from doing other stuff.

2) It doesn't make sense since there isn't any command structure at all in the game anyway. Everyone follows the players commands.

3) If you have such a command structure/chain of command why isn't there any officers from the start?

4) It takes away from my enjoyment (by being an annoying and needlessly complicated system) and possibly from others that don't appreciate "this" the same way you do. (yes 4. is a very selfish point that really has nothing to do with it. You can after all make a similar point for the change.. It's the first 2 points that are important)

[War Games]

1) It takes away resources from doing other stuff.

2) It doesn't make sense since there isn't any command structure at all in the game anyway. Everyone follows the players commands.

3) If you have such a command structure/chain of command why isn't there any officers from the start?

4) It takes away from my enjoyment (by being an annoying and needlessly complicated system) and possibly from others that don't appreciate "this" the same way you do. (yes 4. is a very selfish point that really has nothing to do with it. You can after all make a similar point for the change.. It's the first 2 points that are important)

It is your personal opinion, and only...

My opinion is that this will be a very interesting addition to the game.

I suggest to not argue and do not hold discussions on this topic.

It's clear that you do not support my suggestion.

[Gauddlike]

Generally the numbers of available spots at any rank are limited by the number of soldiers you have.

Like a pyramid scheme with more guns.

You would be able to get 15 colonels but only if you had enough lower ranks to support that.

That is the basis behind my suggestion.

I am not sure if that is actually working in the game yet though.

Ignoring privates because for some reason you can skip that rank completely with a training course.

When you have two of any rank you unlock one of the higher rank.

That is mainly so you almost always have a single trooper with the highest available rank rather than eight sharing command.

You can't get any more of that rank until you have ten (random number for demonstration purposes) of the previous one though.

So when you get two corporals you allow one to be promoted to sergeant.

When you get to eleven corporals you allow another sergeant promotion.

Now that you have two sergeants you allow one of them to be promoted to lieutenant.

You now need to get ten sergeants before you can get another lieutenant.

None of this means automatic promotion though.

You still need to meet the minimum requirement of combat experience before you can be promoted.

As I said previously, that should mean your most commonly used troops should migrate to the top of your command chain.

[Gorlom]

It is your personal opinion, and only...

My opinion is that this will be a very interesting addition to the game.

Are you saying that my opinion doesn't matter?

Ever since that poor attempt at sarcasm (which really shouldn't be attempted in a language you have a very poor grasp of) you have come off as very condecending to me.

I suggest to not argue and do not hold discussions on this topic.

It's clear that you do not support my suggestion.

What's the point of posting it here if you don't want to discuss it? 0.o

Ofc I'm going to voice my opinion against it. I don't want it ingame since it will affect how much enjoyment I get from the game. I'm not argeuing simply because I want to argue. I'm argueing because I think it will worsen the game rather than improve it.

Freedom of speech gives me that right. Wether anyone will listen to me or my arguments is another issue.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Gorlom

[War Games]

What's the point of posting it here if you don't want to discuss it? 0.o

Ofc I'm going to voice my opinion against it. I don't want it ingame since it will affect how much enjoyment I get from the game. I'm not argeuing simply because I want to argue. I'm argueing because I think it will worsen the game rather than improve it.

Freedom of speech gives me that right. Wether anyone will listen to me or my arguments is another issue.

I agree with you.

But the theme is called "military ranks".

You said that you did not serve in the army.

You have no idea for what created military ranks and what kind of load they carry.

You are suggested the medieval title in this topic.

I also defend my point of view.

How is it possible if you are not competent in this matter?

So I suggested that you close the discussion with me.

Not because i wanted to offend you...

I'm sorry if you thought so.

[War Games]

to Gauddlike...

I agree with you, it is quite reasonable.

[Gorlom]

You said that you did not serve in the army.

You have no idea for what created military ranks and what kind of load they carry.

Yes I do. Anything the game mechanics decides on. And right now the ranks don't carry squat. They are not a placement in a chain of command. Your suggestion would not change that.

You are suggested the medieval title in this topic.

Anything to get you to realise this isn't real life. To make you understand that military ranks doesn't directly translate to the ranks in the game Xenonauts. That Xenonauts doesn't have a chain of command represented. Everyone obeys the commander in the sky aka: the player.

How is it possible if you are not competent in this matter?

Is this how you are trying to smooth things over? If you have already pissed someone off you should stay away from comments that could be interperated as saying that person is stupid... I realise that you might not mean to call me stupid, but it's a matter of what exactly "this matter" is. You think it's about military ranks, it's not. It's game design.

It's not about representing or reflecting real life. (Which is causeing its own problems due to different nations militaries have different rank system) It's a fictional organisation with fictional ranks that can be made to look however anyone wants. They could be named after saint nicks raindeers, or after the ponies in "my little pony". However that wouldn't make sense or add to anyones enjoyment.

That I don't get to express my opinion about how to make it easy to understand or fun and interesting to those that has not gone through military service is bullshit...

How am I not as competent in makeing suggestions about a design issue as anyone else? What makes you more entitled design a gamemechanic if you can't see or even care about seeing the other persons point of view?

I also defend my point of view.

Which is your right and I applaude you for doing so. What pisses me off is that you say I don't have the right to an opinion, or that my opinion is not worth as much as someone elses.

So I suggested that you close the discussion with me.

Not because i wanted to offend you...

I'm sorry if you thought so.

Even if it is not your intent to offend me you are doing one heck of a job of it anyway. Please just stop trying to justify not careing about my opinion.

[crusherven]

In some ways, the X-COM system actually represented real-life ranks fairly well. No one was promoted above lieutenant or whatever until you had a certain number of troops. In the end, you had a sort of pyramid with one commander, a couple colonels, a number of captains and lieutenants, and a lot of sergeants. If your commander died, loads of people would get promoted to fill the ranks back up. That's actually pretty much how it works in real life. Any time a sergeant major retires, there's a ripple effect freeing up space for a lot of promotions lower down the chain.

That said, I spent five years in the military and can't say I care if the game accurately reflects real life. Aesthetically, I'd prefer a greater emphasis on enlisted ranks, but it's not a big deal.

[Gauddlike]

That is pretty much just a tweak to the numbers.

Set it so that you need 20 sergeants to trigger the next rank or something similar.

[freeaxle]

I think this is an area of the game that has potential to heighten the player's involvement with the game, or descend into hair pulling micro-management. As Gorlom has already stated, captains won't give orders to privates, they will all take orders from you. You are not going to have a realistic system, so why focus on realistic ranks? Secondly, what is it you want to achieve with the rank system? For me, it was always about creating soldiers who a.) you remembered above the rookies and b.) tried to keep alive at all costs. The drawback was that you'd occasionally get a drop-kick getting promoted to a coveted rank for no reason. So, a combination of the x-com system, in which ranks have meaning (they are a limited resource, and impact on morale [loosing a colonel or commander could be battle-losing]) and being able to promote them seems to be the best system for me. It gives you a way of rewarding (and ultimately promoting role-playing) favoured soldiers, increasing both their memorability and value to you as a player.

I'm not a fan of the other system that has been proposed; namely specialising (damn my American-English spell checker, it is spelt with an S![And it is god-damn spelt not 'spelled'!]) soldiers down one of two paths. It adds a level of complication that isn't necessary; soldiers already specialise based on their stats. It just means you have to decide how to create a 'perfectly' balanced team. Hell, it is one of the big question marks over Firaxis' X-Com remake.

In conclusion, limited ranks, player promotion = role-playing + gameplay win. Sorry if I've repeated stuff already said/stated the obvious. In that case you may want to unread this post in a desperate attempt to get your wasted time back. I wish you the best of luck.

freeaxle

[Xitax]

The reason I suggest an OCS course:

-Since the soldier will be occupied for a while you have to decide when you can spare him/her. Give officers some bonuses so that you have to decide whether to have the extra soldier or take the time to get the bonus.

-Officers might provide a morale bonus on missions, resulting in fewer incidences of 'berserk' and 'too terrified to move'.

-Officers might provide a bonus to base management resulting in lower upkeep costs.

-Officers might provide a bonus to organization resulting in better results on research and production.

-High ranking officers might provide a bonus to PR resulting in better public funding.

-Officers might provide a bonus to communications allowing you to find out about alien events or bases beyond your radar range sooner or more often.

Just some ideas.

[crusherven]

Hey, now, freeaxle, at least we don't add an extra letter to "aluminum" when we pronounce it.

That is pretty much just a tweak to the numbers.

Set it so that you need 20 sergeants to trigger the next rank or something similar.

That's not really what I mean at all. I mean I'd prefer to see more enlisted ranks (eg Lance Corporal, Gunnery Sergeant, Master Sergeant) and fewer officer ranks like Colonel. That is, I'd insert another enlisted rank below Corporal and another above Sergeant and only have a couple officer ranks. It doesn't really matter all that much though. I think most civilians think officers are actually useful or something.

[War Games]

That's not really what I mean at all. I mean I'd prefer to see more enlisted ranks (eg Lance Corporal, Gunnery Sergeant, Master Sergeant) and fewer officer ranks like Colonel. That is, I'd insert another enlisted rank below Corporal and another above Sergeant and only have a couple officer ranks. It doesn't really matter all that much though. I think most civilians think officers are actually useful or something.

+1 to support your opinions...

[freeaxle]

Hey, now, freeaxle, at least we don't add an extra letter to "aluminum" when we pronounce it.

...

That's not really what I mean at all. I mean I'd prefer to see more enlisted ranks (eg Lance Corporal, Gunnery Sergeant, Master Sergeant) and fewer officer ranks like Colonel. That is, I'd insert another enlisted rank below Corporal and another above Sergeant and only have a couple officer ranks. It doesn't really matter all that much though. I think most civilians think officers are actually useful or something.

Over here we spell it Aluminium - seriously thought aluminum and aluminium were two different materials for most of my early life! Still, American and British/Australian English are mutually intelligible so I have no problem with other people's spelling. Mainly I just hate my fascist spell-checker! Could probably change that but meh, it gives me something to hate.

My main problem is with the idea of having two tracks - I don't think it adds anything to the game except pointless micro-management. It might keep 'power-gamers' happy, but I prefer to let the stats decide what my soldiers can do with rank simply being a morale thing.

I like your idea Crusherven to have fewer officers - that will help with the realism. Also liked another post earlier which suggested having ranks more consistent with a special forces unit which makes a lot of sense to me. Either way - fewer high level officers among my rank and file please

[Gauddlike]

That's not really what I mean at all.

Apologies, I misunderstood.

Actually the same still applies if you wanted to rename or replace a couple of the ranks you could do the same at whichever break point you set.

If we didn't have enough officer ranks though who would be making sure we had enough paper clips to keep the war effort moving?

[Erchamion]

I have played the demo a couple of times now, and having 4-5 Captain's and the rest of the soldiers being Sergeant's after 10 mission doesn't feel quite right.

Therefore I propose a rank progression similar to this, keeping in mind that a Captain probably is the highest ranking officer of an elite special forces army that would be out in the field with the soldiers:

Private- soldier without training or experience

Private First Class/Lance Corporal- soldier with training or soldier without training but with 5 missions as Pvt

Corporal- soldier with 5 missions as PFC/LCpl

Sergeant- soldier with 5 missions as Cpl

Staff Sergeant- soldier with 5 missions as Sgt, there can be only 20 SSgt's

Gunnery Sergeant/Master Sergeant- soldier with 5 missions as SSgt, there can be only 10 GySgt's/MSgt's

Sergeant Major/Warrant Officer- soldier with 10 missions as GySgt/MSgt,there can be only 5 SgtMaj's/WO's

Lieutenant- soldier with 10 missions as SgtMaj/WO, there can be only 2 Lt's

Captain- soldier with 20 missions as Lt, there can be only 1 Cpt

If there are more than one soldier up for promotion but only 1 spot the one with most kills/medals/experience should get promoted.

Exceptional soldiers(kills/medals/experience) should of course have a chance to be promoted before they have reached the required number of missions for the next rank.

And for the starting 12 soldiers I think that this would be a good blend:

1 SGT, 3 CPL, 4 PFC/LCpl, 4 Pvt

[Gauddlike]

I don't like the idea of basing it purely on how many missions they have done, not how well they actually did in those missions.

Someone who sat in the Chinook for 20 missions (not looking at Thotkins here) could end up being a higher rank than someone who has been on the frontlines.

The other thing is that you have no limit on how high someone can get promoted.

Under that system you could take your initial 12 men up to the highest ranks without having anyone ranked under them.

That takes it back to the same top heavy command structure you disliked to begin with.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Gauddlike