Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Terra-jin on August 23, 2009, 02:09:24 pm

Title: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Terra-jin on August 23, 2009, 02:09:24 pm
When playing through the FS1 campaign on medium, I'd be a commander at the end of it. With FS2 however, I'm not even a lieutenant. Why does it seem to be harder to gain ranks in FS2? It seems to be because you only get points for killing stuff, while in FS1 you also got points for completing mission objectives (I think). Anyone else noticed this?
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Commander Zane on August 23, 2009, 02:29:38 pm
I'm a Lieutenant Commander at Clash of the Titans II on Medium. :P
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: da1edwin on August 23, 2009, 02:32:58 pm
When playing through the FS1 campaign on medium, I'd be a commander at the end of it. With FS2 however, I'm not even a lieutenant. Why does it seem to be harder to gain ranks in FS2? It seems to be because you only get points for killing stuff, while in FS1 you also got points for completing mission objectives (I think). Anyone else noticed this?

Well, there are missions in FS1 that grant automatic promotions for completing them. I think Black Omega is an example of that. But I'm pretty sure FS2 gives points for completing mission objectives too.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: sigtau on August 23, 2009, 02:37:43 pm
Coming from a campaign designer's point of view, yes, FRED does allow the campaign designer to award points to the player for completing an objective.

Typically, I do this with secondary objectives and, more prominently, bonus objectives.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: General Battuta on August 23, 2009, 02:42:11 pm
That's not always good practice for user-made campaigns, because you might get promoted, and then you'll have Petrarch or whatever reading your promotion text, which sounds a bit odd.

The Procyon Insurgency handled it better, using a custom points system with training messages.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: sigtau on August 23, 2009, 02:43:51 pm
It's good practice when you have good voice actors.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Snail on August 23, 2009, 02:44:33 pm
Which 90% of campaigns don't have.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: sigtau on August 23, 2009, 02:46:27 pm
Which 90% of campaigns don't have.

This is true.

I think FS1 handled goals better than FS2 did, to be honest.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: General Battuta on August 23, 2009, 02:53:55 pm
Frankly, FS1/2-style promotions are dumb, and custom campaigns that include them shake my suspension of disbelief just a weee bit. Pilots should be promoted once, maybe twice, throughout a campaign, and never up past the rank of Captain without serious effort by the campaign designer to make it believable.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Solatar on August 24, 2009, 09:59:08 am
Commodore up to Admiral is a nice sounding rank and all, but it does make it unbelievable. If I was really promoted to Commodore, what the hell am I doing in a fighter? A Commodore, by definition, commands warships.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: da1edwin on August 24, 2009, 10:18:47 am
Commodore up to Admiral is a nice sounding rank and all, but it does make it unbelievable. If I was really promoted to Commodore, what the hell am I doing in a fighter? A Commodore, by definition, commands warships.

Well, in terms of believability, shouldn't the fighters be piloted by enlisted GTVA service members? A real-life U.S. Air Force or Navy Lieutenant wouldn't be flying an F-16 around, I don't think.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Solatar on August 24, 2009, 10:23:26 am
I might be wrong, so if somebody who has experience in the air force comes along and corrects me, don't be surprised. I thought fighters were only piloted by officers, actually. Obviously once you get beyond a certain point, you won't be flying a fighter anymore, but I could have sworn fighter pilots could attain the rank of captain.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: The E on August 24, 2009, 10:25:48 am
Yes, they actually would.
Don't know about the USAF, but the german Luftwaffe's fighter pilots are exclusively officers, most in the Lieutenant - Colonel range. I don't think the USAF handles these things differently.
During WW2, there was a "Flying Sergeants" program that allowed people to get into a fighter without the need to go through Officer training, but that is no longer in effect, I believe.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: General Battuta on August 24, 2009, 10:33:15 am
Commodore up to Admiral is a nice sounding rank and all, but it does make it unbelievable. If I was really promoted to Commodore, what the hell am I doing in a fighter? A Commodore, by definition, commands warships.

Well, in terms of believability, shouldn't the fighters be piloted by enlisted GTVA service members? A real-life U.S. Air Force or Navy Lieutenant wouldn't be flying an F-16 around, I don't think.

Incorrect. Aircraft are exclusively flown by officers, including ranks like Flight Lieutenant.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Commander Zane on August 24, 2009, 11:54:33 am
What he said.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 24, 2009, 02:02:14 pm
Frankly, FS1/2-style promotions are dumb, and custom campaigns that include them shake my suspension of disbelief just a weee bit. Pilots should be promoted once, maybe twice, throughout a campaign, and never up past the rank of Captain without serious effort by the campaign designer to make it believable.

I dunno, if I was in an air force and racked up 400 kills in the space of a few months I would think they would name me their new god and sacrifice virgins in my honor. :lol:
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: The E on August 24, 2009, 02:05:02 pm
This being the military, they would probably just rearm your fighter, give you a pat on the back, and send you up again. Or send you off to Flight training to teach others.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: SpardaSon21 on August 24, 2009, 04:35:22 pm
Frankly, FS1/2-style promotions are dumb, and custom campaigns that include them shake my suspension of disbelief just a weee bit. Pilots should be promoted once, maybe twice, throughout a campaign, and never up past the rank of Captain without serious effort by the campaign designer to make it believable.

I dunno, if I was in an air force and racked up 400 kills in the space of a few months I would think they would name me their new god and sacrifice virgins in my honor. :lol:
All hail our new god, Alpha One!
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Commander Zane on August 24, 2009, 05:00:09 pm
I...don't think that's an electable position.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: SpardaSon21 on August 24, 2009, 05:59:32 pm
What, you mean the position of God, or Alpha One?
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Commander Zane on August 24, 2009, 06:34:05 pm
Someone doesn't play JAD... :doubt:
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: da1edwin on August 24, 2009, 09:10:15 pm
Commodore up to Admiral is a nice sounding rank and all, but it does make it unbelievable. If I was really promoted to Commodore, what the hell am I doing in a fighter? A Commodore, by definition, commands warships.

Well, in terms of believability, shouldn't the fighters be piloted by enlisted GTVA service members? A real-life U.S. Air Force or Navy Lieutenant wouldn't be flying an F-16 around, I don't think.

Incorrect. Aircraft are exclusively flown by officers, including ranks like Flight Lieutenant.

Oops, my bad.

What do enlisted airmen do then, if they can't fly planes?
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Commander Zane on August 24, 2009, 09:13:40 pm
The meanial tasks. :P
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Exeter on August 25, 2009, 02:42:05 am
Everything it takes to keep the plane in the air and pew-pewing the bad guys.

The FreeSpace ranks we've seen, at least for commissioned officers, are closest in line with those of the U.S. Navy.  Who knows if that's the case with enlisted/NCOs, though it would be funny to see if they took the next logical step from the Air Force's Airman and Navy's Seaman rank and started off enlisted personnel at Spaceman.

"Spaceman Spiff, get your ass over here and help me with this tachyon frammisat."
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: headdie on August 25, 2009, 03:34:59 am
in the RAF I believe in terms of the aircraft non officers do stuff like maintenance, arming and on craft with turrets manning them, if you get your degree then you can apply to pilot
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Killer Whale on August 25, 2009, 04:59:40 am
I...don't think that's an electable position.
What, you mean the position of God, or Alpha One?
:wakka: :lol: ROLF :lol: :wakka:
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Commander Zane on August 25, 2009, 05:31:14 am
Rolling on laughing floor? :P
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Dilmah G on September 04, 2009, 04:32:19 am
Battuta is right, aircraft are flown exclusively by officers in most if not all modern militaries. There were enlisted airmen recruited in WWII by the Commonwealth, but apart from that, no one below OFFCDT is stepping into that aircraft.

in the RAF I believe in terms of the aircraft non officers do stuff like maintenance, arming and on craft with turrets manning them, if you get your degree then you can apply to pilot
Yeah, in the RAAF that's the case to some extent, the less "elegant" jobs you could almost say. Although being an Adgie (Airfield Defence Guard) would be pretty cool. :) Do you need a degree over there to apply as well? I thought that was more of an American thing, (then again, the benefits of having College educated officers stem beyond pure academics). Over here we take direct entry, or non-graduate candidates for all positions, including Pilot. Though, the bulk of the applicants are those with a fair bit of life experience and are typically mature aged.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Ratu on September 09, 2009, 02:49:19 pm
In the British Army Air Corps, enlisted men (and women) can fly attack helicopters. Though you do need to be an officer in the RN or RAF.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Dilmah G on September 10, 2009, 04:27:55 am
Yeah, lots of services these days are bringing in Warrant Officer Programs, though I've no idea why, it's not like there's a shortage of applicants (then again applicant quality may be lacking...).
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Killer Whale on September 11, 2009, 03:25:53 am
In the British Army Air Corps, enlisted men (and women) can fly attack helicopters. Though you do need to be an officer in the RN or RAF.
There's a British Army Air Corps? I thought there was only the Royal Air Force :blah:
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Dilmah G on September 11, 2009, 04:41:53 am
Yeah, well that's where all your Apaches and Lynxs' come under.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: NGTM-1R on September 11, 2009, 04:55:41 am
There's a British Army Air Corps? I thought there was only the Royal Air Force :blah:

Whirliebirds.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Aardwolf on September 21, 2009, 09:03:26 pm
Yay, I just beat FS2 on Medium. Rank was Lieutenant Commander, I had at least one of each medal, and I should have had the triple ace (392 kills) but it cheated me somehow.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Scotty on September 21, 2009, 09:09:32 pm
I don't think cargo kills count to the "Ace" medals.  I had 376 at the end, with no triple ace either.

Then the damn game ate my pilot :mad:
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: stuart133 on September 22, 2009, 03:14:25 pm
I don't think cargo kills count to the "Ace" medals.  I had 376 at the end, with no triple ace either.

Then the damn game ate my pilot :mad:

Yeah, I don't think that someone going around blowing up cargo containers is really what the GTVA admirals really think of as one of their best pilots.  :D :D
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: NGTM-1R on September 22, 2009, 06:48:26 pm
Hey, those cargo containers were packed full of Harpoons. I save twenty wingmen from NTF-harpooning-death a container.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: kaloonzu on September 29, 2009, 11:47:19 am
Hey, those cargo containers were packed full of Harpoons. I save twenty wingmen from NTF-harpooning-death a container.

/agree. besides, i was getting Hornets up the tailpipe all the while I was destroying those containers....
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: QuantumDelta on September 29, 2009, 05:23:24 pm
Ace pins aren't given out for every hundred kills :wtf:
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Hippo on September 29, 2009, 11:11:55 pm
no
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Thaeris on September 30, 2009, 11:32:15 am
Interesting discussion on enlisted/officer flight roles. The U.S. Army also employs Warrant Officers for rotary aviation, though regular officers can fill that role as well, I believe. The USAF certainly employs enlisted personnel onboard aircraft, though that's not as common as it used to be. Gunners would be a good example of an Airman aboard an aircraft... the only fixed-wing type in the U.S. that this applies to is the AC-130 Spectre as far as I can remember.

As far as FS bombers go, I'd never believe a story that the second crewmember was enlisted. By all accounts, that individual would be the WSO, which is irrefutably an officer position. You might argue that if support ships are multi-crew (I'd assume they would be), the "loadmaster" or the likes could possibly be a Warrant Officer/Flight Sergeant... you might even argue that the pilot might be as such, too.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: stuart133 on September 30, 2009, 01:43:19 pm
Talking of Rotary aircraft the Army air core (British) uses NCOs to fly their helicopters, and almost all of them have to have severed as regular soldiers on the ground.

Also I don't think that support ships would have more than one person. It would seem to me that they have a small cockpit for the pilot and the rest is full of missiles, which are loaded by the automated system. There would be no need for any loadmaster to be on board. On the other hand the gunners in the capships would be NCOs with perhaps a gunnery officer on station to command them.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Thaeris on September 30, 2009, 01:54:00 pm
Both the Centaur and Hygeia are pretty big... with rather large cockpits. The current HTL Centaur could use a pretty extensive revision to the cockpit in my opinion... and it could certainly hold more than one occupant. I actually like the idea of a support ship having 2-3 crewmembers as far as storytelling goes: A pilot... probably an officer/warrant officer; a loadmaster, managing the fine points of servicing and rearming fighters, and a flight medic. I think it would be pretty cool if support ships would actually pick up ejected pilots... and a medic on board would be responsible for recovering and tending to the downed crewman/men (or woman/man).
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: NGTM-1R on September 30, 2009, 07:33:01 pm
To be bluntly honest, there's no actual reason you need officer flight crew. People just like it for some reason. If the GTVA is ever forced to mount a rapid expansion or replacement of fightercraft strength, you'll probably see NCOs leak into the force.
Title: Re: FS2 ranks vs FS1's
Post by: Thaeris on September 30, 2009, 08:26:26 pm
True. In WWII, I believe the USAAC impressed NCOs into service (Flight Sergeants?). Afterwards (if they survived long enough) they'd gain a field comission I'd imagine.