Talk:Flight Sim Merger
Names
Don't like either of the suggested ones, personally; I'm not much of a names person, but I like to start by thinking of abbreviations that might be good (CF? - hell, Crusader Fleet used to exist; WF? maybe too much like WWF) -Licah Fox 10:00, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
"Alliance Battle Fleet" is better, though a bit too close to "Allegiance Battle Group".
Let's look at the current names:
- Patriot: nationalistic (clubalistic?); premise of being the RS' first and most successful fleet, and being the backbone of the RS
- Retribution: revengeful; premise of stealing Empire's ships and using against them
- Renegade: rebellious; premise of having a lot of cocky pilots that don't care about command?
- Intrepid: brave; premise of...playing a game with poor MP? I'm not sure.
The new flying fleet is a combination of various elements, so I like the "Alliance" theme; here are some other possibilities:
- Coalition Fleet
- Union Fleet
- Federated Flight Fleet (FFF!)
or things like:
- RS Strike Fleet
or from wing names:
- Valor Fleet
- Guardian Fleet
- Storm Fleet
just some possibilities....
-Licah Fox 14:52, 17 February 2006 (EST)
- As for fleet names, I'm hesitant to suggest any types of "combination" or "Union" type names.. seems tacky to me, but, I'm game for whatever the majority votes for. ~Joshua Hawkins
I’d kinda dig something New Republic-ish:
- Crusader Strike Fleet
- Crusader Battle Group
- Stalwart Battle Group
- RS Space Corp (thinking like Army Air Corp)
- Outer Rim Space Corp
- Outer Rim Fleet
I’m in favor of using the current fleets as wing names (i.e. Renegade, Intrepid, Patriot, Retribution) or at least picking new names based on those. Units do get shifted around and reorganized into new command, so it would be acceptable to create new wing names and reuse various squadron names.
However, I would have to object that using similar names such as "Dragon", "Red", and "Red Dragon" should be avoided. It add confusion in casual references to these units and steal from their distinctiveness. I strongly favor using unique names (whether they’re reused from old units or not) for the fleet/wings/squadrons. --Rekio 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- Squad names will remain the same, unless the current CO wishes to change the name to reflect the new fleet. Squadrons carry with them a history, some of the newer squads may wish to change their names, while others may wish to keep it the same. Wing names will be changed, I would like to change them to the fleets we are combining, if only out of respect. That is however up to the Fleet CS. Joshua Hawkins 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- In the new system, as far as I understand it, all fleets could condense into the one, so we're all based in one single story. In cases where most of the people in the squadron fly the same platform, then there will be some sense of squadron unity, as they're almost always flying missions together, in addition to the other platforms that some of them will do, too.
- Would it be possible to have nicknames for each 'taskforce' that sets off to do missions . . . where each taskforce is the platform that is flown for it. So that while I might be in Wraith Squadron, which is part of (say) Retribution Wing, and I'll usually fly in (standin-name-for-TIE-missions) taskforce, when I head off to fly other platform missions, I would be participating in other taskforces, too.
- Just something to not be completely in denial of the fact that many of us will be flying different platforms in addition to whatever one we have in common with the rest of the squadron.
- This idea might not be liked very much, not sure . . . just thought I'd voice it. Because I'd like to be able to fly with my squadron in whatever our main taskforce is, as well as 'head off to help out with taskforce x with members of other squadrons.
- -David Vaughan 16:42 7 April 2006 (GMT+10)
- If you find yourself in a squad where you're the only person playing Tie, there's no reason why you can't write your squadmates in (With permission of course), I understand most people want to fly, but this gives people the oppertunity to write out parts of their battle, and add in their own flair to the battle.
- As for the OOB, that cannot be determined until we get all the squads settled and figure out who's going where. Once that is done, we can have a set order of battle. Parts of which I have already come up with, but not knowing enough about how a fleet is comprised, it'll have to be done by the new Fleet CS.
- Joshua Hawkins 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)
Just for reference, this merged Flight Sim group is really the core of what Rebel Squadrons is. In my past RS life mindset, this group you are forming is the Rebel Squadrons, and the other non-flight sim fleets are associated with this thru affliation (in the HC). I originally came up with Republic Shield as the larger group, with the Rebel Squadrons as one organization within it. Of course, I was never able to implement this cuz of timing and how thangs ended up working out. (and then that idea was misapplied later on, ruining the chance the concept implementation then) But maybe we can look at something like this now. As the leader of the Commando Division, I've been thinking it does seem illogical to be calling us squadrons. :)
Anyways, the origial names for our flight sim groups were: -Justice Fleet -Liberation Fleet (aka Internet Fleet)
I like the ideas of using the current fleet names as the wing names. I don't like many of the new fleet names that have been suggested here so far. I think Storm Fleet might be cool cuz it harkens back to our past along a line of continous activity, but might end up being a confusing name when taken into context of our past. Valour Fleet is a pretty good name. The abbreviation could be V2F to make it distinct from Vanguard like we did with Retribution R2F and Renegade RgF. Just my thoughts.
(:"
- Super 5:00pm, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
Merits
Twin suns? All the rest of these are things you can be, but I'm not sure what being a twin suns means. Also, legend rebel? That just sounds tacky, and I think we're the NR, not the Rebel Alliance. Super ace? The word "super" should be avoided. I suggest more gradations in the early times, much like PBF. I'm not sure that "Rebel" is a cooler thing than "Knight", or that we should have rebel at all. -Licah Fox 10:00, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
- For the merits we wanted to get away from the medeval listings, but I do see your point. we'll come up with something.. ~ Joshua Hawkins
Some of the names are pretty lame. Why not dissolve them and just convert to a pure club-wide RS Merit system? --Rekio 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- Merits names are still up in the air, I need people to help come up with better names.I haven't really thought about using the RS merit system, as I figured they are something special. Still having a fleet wide system gives it a little more personal touch. Converting everyone to the RS merits might be a little tricky and confusing at first, but it's something to look into. Joshua Hawkins 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
Structure
Fleet structure: you have 18 squadrons here? I highly recommend a system with 9-10 people per squadron, so try to figure out how many people you have. I recall out of the depths of my mind that I wrote a script to figure this out once, and it looks like this page is it - 128 people means 12-13 squadrons, and I'll bet you that many of those people are actually gone, but the COs haven't been doing their duty. So I'd recommend 12 squadrons at the most. I know that this means disbanding more squadrons, but that may happen anyways.... When this last came up, I was in 4 squadrons, and they were all, except one, disbanded within the next year, so the decision became moot. -Licah Fox 10:00, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
- The fleet roster was setup just to get a good idea of where everything will be. I understand alot of those squads will be disbanded, which is to be expected. However, it'll be up to the pilot to choose which squad he wants to be in. Only when they fail to choose in a timely manner will we choose for them. ~ Joshua Hawkins
I don't understand the switch from 3 squadron per wing to 6 squadron. Was there any reason for this? If you're going to stick with Imperial style wing, you should also consider making the flag staff dedicated (i.e. they'll be full time command and not pilots in squadrons).
Considering the recruitment and retention rate of the flight sim games, I agree with Licah that 12 or so squadrons (2-6 squad wings or 4-3 squad) would be better. --Rekio 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- The squads were listed in 6 for cosmetic reasons. Realistically, when everyone decides on their primary squad, the squads should be 3 or 4 per wing. No more than 4 per wing. We can't narrow it down completely until we know where each member is going. I'de like to have full squads if possible, but as long as they have at least 7 or 8 members I'd like to think the squad would be around. Plus some people will retire and not like a merger idea, others being in more than one squad/fleet will move to where they are comfortable. It's a wait and see game with this part of the merger. Joshua Hawkins 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
First of all (before any other changes) I would recommend to create something like a Space Combat Command, with a high ranked officer in charge and with the fleets COs, so you will have 5 people who can coordinate restructuralization of the 4 fleets. That way we can get things running, and no changes to the fleets are currently needed. Of course 5 people would be the minimum. Space Combat Command would have more staff (i.e. IOs, Academy, auxiliary - ITOD creators, ...). And make it possible for pilots to choose the Space Combat Command as "primary fleet". Many pilots do XvT and XWA, so if they can get ranking in both games, they won't do only one (the more MP active) game.
If you really want to merge fleets, I am not the person who could stop that. But as I am still confused of all the squadrons and wings in Redemption Fleet, I would suggest to have only one wing for each game, or to create something like task forces for each game. Also it would be REALLY nice if there could be the ships (the squadrons are assigned to) in the rosters of the 4 fleets. That would be good for orientation, and it would also intensify the role playing aspect of the RS. DaLe 06:23, 25 March 2006 (EST)
- I agree, and this is what the Order of Battle is supposed to be. However, we have not had a Logistics Officer for quite some time, so that has not been maintained correctly. But beyond that, I really like the idea of having the capital ships we're assigned to be part of the roster somehow, if that were possible. At the moment I'm working on the battle history for all of the craft involved in the ITODs, so that might come in handy in some way . . . anyway, I'll report back on that when I'm actually finished, but I thought I'd make a note that I like this idea, as it would really help those of us know are inclined in authoring narratives.
A bit of a question . . . would it be possible or feasible to have each platform release their mission in a different week of the month from the rest . . . so that every month one mission is released for all four platforms, but not all at the same time.
I only ask because that could introduce a sense of chronology between the platforms, and have it make sense from a storyline perspective how each pilot can be in four different locations at once (please don't tell me I'm not using my imagination enough -- I just like to be logistical, and to aid the ease of suspension of disbelief, dammit!)
People would still have the entire month to fly each mission, so it's not like we'd be forcing anyone to rush -- they can still fly them out of order if they really want, I just think it would be a nice idea. Now, whether it's feasible is another matter entirely . . . and it does hinge on the possibility of getting a new mission out every month without fail or delays, which might be pushing it a bit, with unforseen circumstances and all that.
-David Vaughan 16:51, 7 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)
- Ultimately I would like to get away from the ideas of platforms completely. I think if we make the flight sims together (all 4 games release a mission in the same newsletter) we can get away from the "platform" idea, and more towards a role play/RPG feel. This way we're all on the same fleet, we're all flying the same ships (Tie being the obvious exception). Now, the missions themselves can give you alternate points of view. Depending on the mission, you could be playing as a pirate group, attacking/defending against the RS. The possibilities are endless. We're limited by the game engines and our imaginations. There's no need to seperate games anymore with this merger.
- Now, Realistically, unless we get a couple of dedicated missions builders, the chances of us releasing 4 missions in the same newsletter is going to be really tough. With enough preperation though, I feel it can be done. Fleet CS, just needs to iron out a story line and give the mission builders some clues. after that, it's whatever surprises they want to come up with.
- Joshua Hawkins 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)
- I'm afraid I have to disagree . . . as much as we try to deny it, there are four different platforms available. Now, while I don't feel that this means we need to set up containment zones and corden off areas to keep people separate, I would like to be able to right in 'bla bla bla, flew with Taskforce D in attacking the satellites near bla bla bla' rather than trying to pretend all four missions a month that I fly are in the same area at the same time.
- This might be an undesirable idea -- don't really care, I just want to get my voice heard before it's decided, as I'd prefer to hear 'no we don't like this idea and won't run with it' or 'sure, sounds great' rather than 'oh, why didn't you mention that earlier?'
- If Blabla Squadron is assigned to a taskforce led by the Cruiser Oompf, I'd like some kind of in-universe reasoning for launching from the Star Destroyer Something once every four missions. I'd like to be able to say 'headed to the STD Something as part of Taskforce B's recon mission tot he moons of Wonko.
- Call that limited imagination on my part if you'd like (which I would disagree with), but it's similar to you not wanting to include a joke about one of your command staff sucking face with a mynock, because that hasn't happened for a few years yet (due to the time displacemnt of ABG). All of this is fiction, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter? But it doesn't mesh well in your head, so you don't do it. I'm not sure if I've made my point of not, but I just think it might be a good idea to keep some kind of continuity happening here by not completely ignoring the platforms flown.
- -David Vaughan 17:40, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)
- Those are very good points and ideas, but you do limit yourself slightly. :) In one month, we can have an XW mission from the POV of a pirate clan attacking the RS, while the Tie mission of that month is defending the RS against the pirates. This can put XvT mission on either side, and the XWA Mission doing recon, or attacking the pirate base while the pirates attacking the RS. So how you plan on writing you're narratives, depends on which mission you're flying. So if you fly XW as a pirate, and fly the XWA mission attacking the pirate base, you get to be creative and have split personalities. :)
- Joshua Hawkins 06:16, 9 April 2006 (EDT)
Academy
Looking specifically at the Academy Wing i can say as the RgF UG CO that there is need for only 1 squadron for the RgF as the number of cadets coming through doesn't warrant more. I'd be guessing that this would be the same for all the flying fleets. If cadets are managed properly i can't see them filling up anyway. -Phil
- Yeah, I can see that, especially with Tie, As long as Ace keeps cadets o nthe ball, XW will only need one squad as well. Still I'de like to have the space there "just in case"
- I figure the squad names will be changed to reflect the game they are teaching, no need for them to have real squad names. The days of Grey-alpha flying with the cadets are over. ~Joshua Hawkins
Instead of having a bunch of specialty training, it might be easier to design a model based on more generalized requirements. It seems redundant to make a member go to multiple school when the basic principle behind all mission is the same. If a Cadet can play a TIE mission, he'll be able to figure out how to install and play XWA and XvT too.
It'd be best if the Training CO was in charge of the whole thing and then there were "specialty" instructors for technical advice. The TCO could then assign graduated cadets to the appropriate squadron, based on whatever the selection convention happens to be (possibly a draft system where worse performing/smaller squadrons get more recruits, or simply a rotation of assignment.) Also might be worth trying to establish some sort of buddy system where Cadets could be paired with older members of their designated squadron to help get them settled in. --Rekio 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- The fleet academy is easy to work around, you don't have to actually physically move a cadet from one squad to another to get trained. You can, if only for organizational purposes. I figure with the 4 fleets we are combining, the 4 TO's can get together and work something out that will be beneficial to everyone. For the beginning though, having the individual squads is worthwhile. I agree that the TO should be incharge of everyone, and have the squad CO's as instructors. Joshua Hawkins 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
Medals
I've added some examples of new gold medals for top gun in each of the 4 games. You'll find the page here. Gods I suck at graphic creations, but at least you get the idea of what I was trying to do. Maybe TJ will assist in creation if we ask nicely? Long as it's not a big gold medal with "XWA" or whatever the game is on it, that would just look stupid, In my opinion. I have silver and Bronze medals created as well, but I only posted the gold versions for now.
Just some thoughts..
Joshua Hawkins 06:22, 22 February 2006 (EST)
I still hold that fleet medals like merits, should be dissolved in favor of a revamped club-wide medal system. See related comments in my Medal System proposal. --Rekio 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- I don't think the medals are going to change. There won't be as many fleet wide medals, but we'll still have a few important ones. Having Fleet specific medals is important. Still the if the RS medals are going to get another overhaul from what they are now, this issue can be discussed in better detail. Joshua Hawkins 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
Storyline
Just wait till Vender comes back or something. Or get an AFer to do it. There are tons of possible storylines, I'm sure I could create a good one in an hour or so... -Licah Fox 10:00, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
See related comments in the Common ITOD section. --Rekio 05:48, 26 February 2006 (EST)
- As for the narratives, I don't think having wing CO's in charge of the story is worth while. I can't see any benefit. I can see however, "wing missions" during a story. Something for added credit and bonus. Joshua Hawkins 08:49, 26 February 2006 (EST)
I get the impression that having the Thrawn offensive (Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn) as the major threat that forces the fleets to re-organise, but this is problematic, as the club seems to be all over the place, chronologically.
Auroraforce and Allegiance Battle Group are sometime after Daala's assault (Jedi Academy Trilogy by Kevin "Inept" Anderson), whereas the flight sim fleets seem to be perpetually stuck at 'just before Thrawn's invasion' five years after the Battle of Endor. We've been there for ten years, longer than most of us have actually even been here, which is what caused the fictional fleets to splinter away in frustration.
Recently I have begun the task of cataloguing all of the previous ITODs that I can get my hands on (which amounts to all of them but the first three tours of Retribution Fleet, which seem to have been forever lost in the void). I'm about thirty percent through, and I can find little to no evidence to support that we are actually five years post Endor. Not that I'm saying that the mission statement is wrong, just that we don't have to be stuck there if we do want to move on (I know this notion might frighten some people :P).
Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any storyline content which specifies that we have to actually be in this time frame, and in fact, in Patriot Battle Fleet Tours 2 and 3, the main antagonist is Imperial Warlord Admiral Daala, which is a few years after the Thrawn offensive.
Just something that I thought I'd throw up here -- the idea that we don't have to be perpetually stuck in time. We can move on through the timeline slowly if we want to do that. And we don't even have to do that quickly . . . I mean, between missions is sometimes days, or hours, so it's not like we're going to be 'OMG Unknown Regions invasion time!' and post-Civil War time anytime soon, because we won't need to proceed at a realtime pace.
David Vaughan 16:27 7 April 2006 (GMT+10) (Fixed spacing to make it easier to read . . . and removed embarassing gramattical error. :P -- Capt. Vaughan)
- We needed a good reason to bring the fleet together, and Thrawn seemed like a good enough place to start. As for the perpetual time loop we're in. It's mainly a matter of game limitation. We're stuck with ships in the battle of yavin/endor era. Not much we can do about it. Which is why I think alot of the tours dropped the times/dates/etc. We're flying most of the EU's history right now. Still, I agree, it would be nice to move on.
- Joshua Hawkins 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)
- Very good points, except . . . TIE Fighters, Corvettes, Frigates, Star Destroyers, X-wings, Cal Cruisers are all referenced as being part of the New Republic fleet until very late in the EU timeline.
- As long as we focus on New Republic - Imperial Remnant conflict, as well as pirates and things, we shouldn't run into any problems (as long as we purposely steer clear of anything unusual like the Ssi Ruuk, the Vuzhan Vong (spelling?), or the Chiss . . . ).
- David Vaughan 17:45 9 April 2006 (GMT+10)
Scoring
Himm likes message boards for reports; I recommend NOT yahoogroups, as it does not store pilot files anymore - it used to, which was really nice. Alternatives include Topica and Google Groups.
So there can be 4 squadrons who win in any given month? What if one squadron wins all 4 things? I don't know, I prefer a clear standings system like in Common ITOD, but maybe that's just me. -Licah Fox 10:00, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Well if this works out right, and we are able to get all 4 games to release missions every month, then it's possible a squad to could be on top for all 4 games, highly unlikely though.
- Take youself for instance Licah, you are (were?) in all four flying fleets, it's possible you could be the top gun for each mission for the month, but you could also be the only pilot in your squad that flies a couple of games.
- We're not taking away the competetion between squads so much, as we're focusing on storylines more than usual. Admittantly if the story progresses the way we want, it will hopefully encourage other pilots to try new games. Which in turn will bring back the squadron wars.
- Having monthly mission to fly, no matter what game it's for, and having the choice to fly any or all of the missions is what counts right now. The game you want maynot be part of the "main storyline" for that month, but it will be part of the story. Like escort duty, or reconn, etc.
- Would it be possible to devise a standardised scoring system for all four platforms? I might be demonstrating my ignorance by asking, but if it were possible, then a more accurate and homogenous scoreboard would exist. That was there would be no bias for or against any particular platform. For example, Patriot Battle Fleet uses a converter for all scores now, because the DOS and CD versions of the game use different scoring systems, and this does not seem to be any major hamper on reporting, as the person handling the reports just includes the adjusted score as the official one.
- -David Vaughan 16:33, 7 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)
- The only game that needs a standard scoring table (To the best of my knowledge) is Xwing. As there is a difference in scoring the XWDos version and the XW95 version. All other games use the in game scores.
- Joshua Hawkins 11:37, 7 April 2006 (EDT)
- TIE Fighter, X-wing vs. TIE Fighter and X-wing Alliance all use the same scoring system? I would have thought they'd all differ . . . -David Vaughan 17:47, 9 Apr 2006 (GMT+10)
- Each Game has it's own scoring system. XWing is the only one that needed a standard scoring table. If the fleet was to have a universal killboard for any reason, we'll all need to come up with a new standard scoring table for all 4 games. Which is alot of work for people to try and learn.
- Joshua Hawkins 06:16, 9 April 2006 (EDT)
