Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
04-07-2011, 02:37 AM
I tend to use [Rank] [lastname] for formal introductions, like the first time you speak to a contact..

after that its normally "Sir" if the conact is below you in rank (like Boffs), Captain or [Rank], again depending on context.

i do think i have a tendancy to over-use any/all of the above however, a habit i got into when I was writing to help identify to whom the dialogue was directed..

I also have noticed if your Captain doesnt have a first name, then [firstname] repeats the last name..

which makes it awkward to use in a more social context when you team it with [lastname].. :s

hopefully cryptic are looking at feedback like this and are coming up with ways around it, i know the "rear admiral lower half" stuff has been bugging people since the cap was raised to VA in cryptic missions anyway.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
04-07-2011, 05:22 PM
I use Captain when it's a crew member addressing the Captain of the ship. Otherwise, I use [rank]. But, yes, the game does address ranks rather awkwardly.

It'd be nice if in the database, it had the character's rank; and then a field for how the person is addressed.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
04-07-2011, 05:25 PM
My solution is to just use the word "Captain" - a title every player holds while on their ship.

I even make fun of the rank distinctions in "State Secrets" - playing through as a RALH/RAUH reveals Garrul mocking your wordy title.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
04-07-2011, 10:22 PM
It seems to me that the canon on this is pretty muddled. In DS9 it's stated that someone is always referred to as "Captain" when he's in command of a ship. However, when Commander Riker is left in charge of the Enterprise while Captain Picard is off on shore leave or whatever, he's not referred to as Captain.

I guess the justification is that he's not the ship's commanding officer, however I think it's a stretch to say Worf is CO of the Defiant when he's in charge of it. This is what the one DS9 episode claimed, but I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense, since you could argue the ship is still under the command of Captain Sisko, he just wasn't on board at the time.

Also if I recall correctly, Kirk is referred to as Admiral in the first few movies, regardless of the fact he was in command of the ship.

I think people may want a reason to use Captain, since it's ridiculous that the top rank in the game is Vice Admiral to begin with, but I'm not completely convinced there is any more justification for it than using [Rank].
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
04-07-2011, 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commadore_Bob
But I roleplay that my ship is the "Admiral's Ship." In that case, even if the Admiral were to take command of the ship himself, he'd still be called Admiral. (Served in the Army; so I'm not 100% certain of naval traditions.)
Naval tradition is to call whoever is in charge of the ship (or even boats) "Captain" regardless of rank (even the enlisted guys that drive the boats from ship to shore are called 'boat captain'). IF there were a situation where an Admiral were to be placed in charge of a ship, they would more than likely just appoint the next person down as "Captain" and resume their Flag Officer duties... which would be coordinating the Fleet or other large scale operation, not commanding a ship. To put it bluntly, Flag Officers have bigger, more important things to do than to look after the minutiae of ship command. If an Admiral (or General) is stuck doing a Captain's job, the Flag Officer work is not getting done. If an Admiral has to stop what they're doing and take charge of a ship, that pretty much signals that the entire command is hosed.

On that note, a "Flagship" does not mean it's "best ship in the fleet", "lead ship", or even "Admiral's ship" necessarily. A ship becomes a flagship simply by having a flag officer on board. An Admiral is visiting for dinner on board? Congratulations, you're now a flagship.

In 'ye olden days of sail', "Ships of the Line" (so called because the prevailing tactic was to sail your flotilla in a line of ships) would have the Admiral commanding the fleet from the lead position in the front of the line, because it was easier to communicate (with flags & lanterns, btw) and coordinate with the other ships if they're all going in the same direction (On that note, a 'Rear Admiral' would be in the ship at the back of the line, which was handy for maneuvers that involve turning your line back and forth to maintain fire on a position without having to snake the entire fleet all the way around - The 'Rear Admiral' would then be in the lead until he signals the entire fleet to do another 180').

After the days of sail had gone by and the world gained a bit of technology in the form of steel hulls, ranged weaponry and radio communication, Admirals could command their fleets from pretty much any ship they wanted to. However it shouldn't be surprising that the typical ship they'd choose for their flagship always had pretty much the same characteristics - the ship with most communications capability, longest ranged weapons, and sturdiest platform. It generally helped if it was a larger ship that was less prone to rocking and rolling because when Admirals command fleets from ships, they don't do so from the bridge. They do so from a 'War Room' (think big room with a map table and miniatures) or even a CIC (Command Information Center). Here, they focus of the big picture of the battlefield, without the distractions of everything going on in the ship (which is what the Captain on the bridge has to deal with - the Admiral is worried about how much firepower he can concentrate on the enemy battlestation while making sure there are enough ships to keep enemy harassers from outflanking the main attack body. He's not concerned about how long it's taking Ensign Ricky to load a High Yield Warhead in Torpedo Bay #6 or if they have to shunt power from Aux. Subsystems to get enough power to engines to perform maneuvers).

It's also important to note that the Admiral doesn't command the ship he/she's on, at least not directly. The Admiral commands the fleet, when they're on board as a fleet command function, they're essentially just using the ship as an office. They can tell the Captain of the ship what to do, but the Captain is still the one in charge of the ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
04-08-2011, 12:21 AM
This problem is present in Cryptic's content as well, so I suggest you just don't worry about it; hopefully, one day Cryptic will bother fixing it.

'Captain' is also an adequate mode of address, though it's less formal and only makes sense in the context of talking to someone in their capacities as commander of a starship. A Starfleet character might call a Starfleet commander 'captain' when he's conning his starship, but a diplomat from a different culture probably wouldn't; he'd either use the officer's rank, or ignore rank completely, or use some culturally specific mode of address.

When Commander Sisko was in command of the Defiant (Before he got promoted to captain), Chief O'Brien or Dax might have called him 'Captain,' but Gul Dukat would certainly have called him 'Commander,' as would a member of the Bajoran militia. Religiously inclined Bajorans, however, would have skipped the rank instead and just gone with 'Emissary.' Modes of address aren't rigid in most real-life militaries, and they're even less so in Starfleet, which as we know is only mildly military.

And, Kirk's stint as an admiral pretty much implies that Starfleet is a little different from historical militaries in that regard. It may be that he was promoted (As a recognition of his long and distinguished service) but opted to stay in his old assignment; this might be extraordinary, or it might be relatively common in Starfleet. His 'flag officer duties' might be reduced or temporary; it may be that he would command a fleet when the Enterprise is deployed as part of a task force, for example, while remaining as essentially a line officer. On the Klingon side, of course, any Klingon general worth his racht would take an active role in combat.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
04-08-2011, 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
It seems to me that the canon on this is pretty muddled. In DS9 it's stated that someone is always referred to as "Captain" when he's in command of a ship. However, when Commander Riker is left in charge of the Enterprise while Captain Picard is off on shore leave or whatever, he's not referred to as Captain.
You wouldn't be called Captain if the actual Commander of the vessel is merely on leave or liberty.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
04-08-2011, 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonSequitur View Post
And, Kirk's stint as an admiral pretty much implies that Starfleet is a little different from historical militaries in that regard. It may be that he was promoted (As a recognition of his long and distinguished service) but opted to stay in his old assignment; this might be extraordinary, or it might be relatively common in Starfleet. His 'flag officer duties' might be reduced or temporary; it may be that he would command a fleet when the Enterprise is deployed as part of a task force, for example, while remaining as essentially a line officer. On the Klingon side, of course, any Klingon general worth his racht would take an active role in combat.
Let's take a look at Kirk's stint(s) as Admiral...

In ST:TMP, Kirk was a Rear Admiral acting as Chief of Starfleet Operations (which now that I think about it, seems like a high posting for a mere Rear Admiral), but stepped down to Captain (even changing uniform stripes) when he took command of the Enterprise away from Decker.

In ST:II, Kirk was an Admiral again, this time as some sort of post over Starfleet Academy. The Enterprise was actually under the command of Captain Spock. Admiral Kirk was officially on board only as an observer for the midshipman/cadet cruise (Enterprise was at this point a training vessel). Of course, once Kirk is on the bridge, his good buddy Spock isn't going to stop Kirk from sitting in the big chair...

In ST:III, Kirk goes rogue, steals the Enterprise, gets it blown up, then steals a BoP. Hardly acting as a Starfleet officer here, let alone an Admiral.

In ST:IV, Kirk takes the stolen BoP back in time to invent transparent aluminum and steal some whales. His actions in stealing and destroying a starfleet ship gets him removed from the Admiralty, but in gratitude for stopping a screeching volleyball-wielding cylinder from destroying the planet, they decide to only bump him down to Captain (permanently) and give him a new Enterprise-A instead of executing him for treason.

So even though Kirk was an Admiral twice, we never actually see him acting in an Admiral's role.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
04-08-2011, 06:35 AM
Maybe the most important question is how much people care about this.

Let's say you were playing a mission and you were being referred to by [Rank], rather than Captain. Is that going to totally ruin your experience? Suppose the mission is great otherwise, would you seriously rate it lower due to being referred to by [Rank], or would you just ignore it as a minor annoyance?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
04-08-2011, 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
You wouldn't be called Captain if the actual Commander of the vessel is merely on leave or liberty.
In that case, surely you'd be called the Acting Captain? Since that is your role but it has been a role you had to fill 'on the fly' with the actual Captain position being vacant.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21 PM.