Rank in non-military (space) fleets/(space) navies?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

I'm planning a space campaign, with an expedition going to places unknown blah blah blah. What I want to talk about now is Ranks. First and foremost, the fleet is (mostly) not a military group. While most ships in the fleet are armed, only a minority are commanded by military officers.

I'm trying to structure the command of the fleet (which can be described as a nano-confederation) with the top leader being best seen as 'first among equals' (s/he/it gets a Veto and a Tiebreaker Vote, but otherwise has very little authority that other ship captains don't). The other detail is that I want to make sure that for the majority of the ships, leaders come from the administrative/diplomatic and scientific/technical branches of society. But . . . I've been exposed to fleet structures that are military in nature. What ways are there to properly set up the ranks for such a situation?

The case might be slightly complicated by the fact that the leaders of some of the ships come from the scientific/technical branch and some come from the administrative/political, one is a non-military warrior and one (maybe two) from the military in the mostly classical sense.

There's been mention that Star Trek's Starfleet is not exactly a military organization. How exactly should something like that be implemented?

Thanks in advance!

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm trying to structure the command of the fleet (which can be described as a nano-confederation) with the top leader being best seen as 'first among equals' (s/he/it gets a Veto and a Tiebreaker Vote, but otherwise has very little authority that other ship captains don't). The other detail is that I want to make sure that for the majority of the ships, leaders come from the administrative/diplomatic and scientific/technical branches of society. But . . . I've been exposed to fleet structures that are military in nature. What ways are there to properly set up the ranks for such a situation?

What's the question? How to price them? I usually do that with the assumption each factor of 10 in number of equals knocks off one level of Administrative Rank, the guy with the tiebreaker vote pays an extra point.

If you are looking for non-military models, corporations or government bureaucracies tend to have less rigid hierarchies. Those are probably good models. Looser organizations like academic environments are probably not, since critical jobs may not get done if there's *no* chain of responsibility.

The case might be slightly complicated by the fact that the leaders of some of the ships come from the scientific/technical branch and some come from the administrative/political, one is a non-military warrior and one (maybe two) from the military in the mostly classical sense.

Why is this a complication? None of those positions count for anything in the rank structure of a separate organization. The Grand High General of the Armies probably wouldn't *accept* a job as Junior Enginewiper in the fleet, but if he did, that would be his rank in that structure and he'd be expected to do what the Deputy Assistant Underchairperson of Enginewipers told him to while on the job. You get hired by a new company, and you don't carry your rank in the old one with you right?

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

You can just have the ship captains be only in charge of the ship and the personnel which run it, while the ship-owners/CEOs tell the captains what to do and command the other passengers, security officers, scientists, and other such employees.

Mutual ship-owners/CEOs can't command each others' ships, personnel or anything like that, just like the CEO of Apple can't walk into Microsoft HQ and tell the Microsoft employees what to do.

The CEOs have Administrative Rank, but only for their own organization, not for each others.

[thrash]

Start with: what purpose do the ranks serve? Is this an ops-normal, "peacetime" hierarchy, a way of identifying who has what authority in a crisis, or a hybrid? Is there a uniform standard, with the same titles having equivalent responsibility across the fleet, or is every ship different?

Some examples you could use, that aren't military:

* Merchant marine vessels have rank titles that are pretty comparable world-wide, based on a set of international agreements on qualifications by position.

* The US has a National Incident Management System, which standardizes job titles and responsibilities across a wide range of federal, state, and local agencies -- but only for the duration of a crisis.

* A corporate structure, with a Board of Directors, President/CEO, VPs, etc., is another option.

* If this is primarily an exploratory fleet, an academic or scientific research hierarchy might be appropriate, with ship operations and maintenance functions in a strictly supporting role.

* Finally, you might look at the structure of Mission Control for the Apollo missions: very hierarchical, but organized along functional lines.

"Captain" is pretty standard for the person in overall command of a ship. "Fleet Captain" or "First Captain" works for your "first among equals," especially if that position is chosen from among all the ships' captains.

[vicky_molokh]

For those who want details:
The expedition is primarily scientific (as in, research stuff and fix the negative space wedgie that is affecting the whole galaxy), but also potentially diplomatic.

The ships are:

• Flagship mostly belonging to scientists, diplomats and technicians, but also providing accommodations to members of other races/civilizations/ships on a per-need basis (50% of the crew).
• Former military dreadnought/carrier half-full of scientists, fulfilling the scientific part of the mission (they're just careful). 20 fighter craft included, but only 10 combat pilots.
• An actual military vessel (large one), there for the protection of the fleet.
• A demilitarized heavy vessel currently assigned to science, mining, and fuel refining - the primary resource provider for the fleet. Some of the crew are diplomats too.
• A rather battle-oriented vessel, courtesy of one of the Yehat clans (crew are warriors and warrior-technicians, but not military); the secondary protector of the fleet.
• Two lightly armed vessels - one transport, one generic - with mixed crew (transport includes a small group of infantry).
• A rather small vessel mostly made for scouting.

As you can see, there's place for Military Rank, Administrative Rank (politicians/diplomats/administrators), and whatever scientists and/or technicians should get. Then there's the question what kind of Rank should the First Captain get.

[Phantasm]

I tend to use "Merchant Marine Rank" for situations like this. Rank 5, normally the highest possible, is the ship captain, and otherwise mimicking the Navy Military Rank titles.

Rank 6 - Flotilla Commander (Commodore)
Rank 5 - Ship Captain (Captain)
Rank 4 - Senior Officer (Commander; First or Second Officer, Chief Engineer, etc)
Rank 3 - Mid-Level Officer (Lieutenant, Lt. Commander)
Rank 2 - Junior Officer (Ensign, Junior Grade Lieutenant)
Rank 1 - Midshipman or Petty Officer
Rank 0 - Sailor

The Captain and Commodore still answer to a desk-jockey with Administrative or Merchant Rank; in game terms, you could treat Merchant Marine Rank 3 as giving a free +1 to Administrative/Merchant Rank and rank 5 or higher giving a free +2 to Admin/Merchant Rank, but only inside the parent company (much as how Rank gives free Status).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm trying to structure the command of the fleet (which can be described as a nano-confederation) with the top leader being best seen as 'first among equals' (s/he/it gets a Veto and a Tiebreaker Vote, but otherwise has very little authority that other ship captains don't).

That means they all have the same rank. Having the veto is basically a perk.

The
other detail is that I want to make sure that for the majority of the ships, leaders come from the administrative/diplomatic and scientific/technical branches of society. But . . . I've been exposed to fleet structures that are military in nature. What ways are there to properly set up the ranks for such a situation?

That two thirds of your commanders are incompetent to command ships doesn't change the rank structure.

There's been mention that Star Trek's Starfleet is not exactly a military organization.

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so

In fact it ain't so. Starfleet is a military organization that likes to say that it is non-military because in their culture "military" is a dirty word, not because it's true.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That two thirds of your commanders are incompetent to command ships doesn't change the rank structure.

Why incompetent?

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so

In fact it ain't so. Starfleet is a military organization that likes to say that it is non-military because in their culture "military" is a dirty word, not because it's true.

They're certainly behaving more like an armed organization of diplomats and scientists than as a military with a couple of scientifically educated officers.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Why incompetent?

Scientists and bureaucrats are very unlikely to have the background to give emergency maneuvering instructions.

They're certainly behaving more like an armed organization of diplomats and scientists than as a military with a couple of scientifically educated officers.

Starfleet flies around in large heavily armed vessels. They wear uniforms. They hold court martials, the penalties for which include dismissal, imprisonment or death. They patrol borders. They intervene to stop other nations from doing things the Federation doesn't like with the use or threat of use of force. They carry out humanitarian missions to relieve the victims of disasters. They police areas not policed by actual law enforcement agencies.

None of those traits are characteristic of either diplomats or (non-military) scientists. Well OK diplomats do threaten the use of force. But not personally.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

. . . None of those traits are characteristic of either diplomats or (non-military) scientists. Well OK diplomats do threaten the use of force. But not personally.

Remember also that Roddenberry built the original Star Trek series as "Horatio Hornblower in Space." During the Napoleonic Era many RN officers acted as de facto diplomats. Hornblower himself, IIRC in Commodore Hornblower and the original Captain Horatio Hornblower, did so. The last time, IIRC, such RN officer acted as such was Lt. Commander Cromie in St. Petersburg during the 1919 Russian Revolution. [The Cheka murdered him for his efforts.]

So, any diplomatic efforts engaged in during the television run of Star Trek would have been a reflection of this "military officer as diplomat" model, and not negated the basically military orientation of the Federation service.

[For that matter, RN officers also collected scientific data for Sir Joseph Banks and others. IIRC Darwin's voyage of the Beagle was an RN expedition with civilian scientists aboard.]