Need Feedback: Starfleet Ranks

Hi.

I'm designing a DecipherTrek campaign set to begin about mid-season 5 of DS9. Basically, the campaign will encompass the immediate run-up to the Dominion War, through the war itself, and into the aftermath.

I anticipate giving the PCs anywhere from five to fifteen or so "advancements", to start out with. Depending on the character concept and the case individual players make to me, I'd like the PCs to begin play as relatively experienced, anywhere from two to ten years into their Starfleet careers. I'd like to limit them to no more than three levels in the Promotion edge (with a maximum rank of Lieutenant Commander), though, because the kind of stories I want to run necessitate the PCs be (at least initially) subordinate to, rather than peers of, folks like Sisko.

This brings me to my question. I want the campaign to have the feel of the last two seasons of DS9, where the characters are primarily based on a space station, but also form the senior staff of a smallish starship. Would it be reasonable for a character with the rank of Lieutenant Commander to be given command of such a ship -- say, something Saber- or Defiant-class, or perhaps even Steamrunner-class?

Thanks.

Under normal circumstances the answer would be highly unlikely. However, if the PCs are experienced line officers, then with the staggering casualties Starfleet suffers during the war, the need for experienced officers of any rank would be enough to get them assigned to postions they would otherwise have to wait years to earn.

Fair enough, Pericles. Let me propose a followup question, then:

What is the lowest rank at which a line officer would reasonably be given command of a small vessel (again, Saber-, Defiant-, or perhaps Steamrunner-class)?

Steamrunners aren't so small, are they??

"Heavy frigates", according to the DecipherTrek Starfleet Operations Manual -- 18 decks, crew complement of 200. They're evidently a little bigger than Intrepid-class ships like Voyager, but a little smaller than old Constitution-class ships. So in TNG/DS9/VGR terms they seem to be pretty modest in size.

In that case, why not Norway?

Honest answer? Because I think Norway-class ships look goofy. :)

I'd suggest a lieutenant as lowest for a ship command on say a Defiant or Saber.

Lowest Lieutenant Commander for Steamrunner, Norway, or Intrepid.

Commander for the Akira or Nebula (but more likely a captain.)

Captain or admiral for the Sovereign or Galaxy.

Justa suggestion

Actually, I don't think Starfleet would lower their rank requirements to the point of putting a lieutenant in charge of a Saber or Defiant.

At the very minimum, they'd probably take a lieutenant commander and brevet him to the rank of commander until he achieves the permanent promotion.

For a Steamrunner or Norway, a commander can fill the role. Rather than brevet a lieutenant commander to a ship of this size, Starfleet would probably just promote the officer early.

Got something against Vikings?? :)
Seriously, a Norway is basically an upside doem constitution. Did the original Enterprise not look goofy at first?

I agree about LtC being the lowest rank to command a true starship. Runabouts don't count.

Sovereign and Galaxy are unusually large. Steamrunner, Norway, Intrepid, Akira, and Nebula are average. Average size deserves a captain in all but the most unusual circumstances. Unusually large ships get captains with seniority, commodores, or rarely flagships get admirals.

Lieutennant is just barely above Ensign. Might as well give Ensigns their own ships.

I'll join in the chorus and say the minimum rank for command of any ship with a crew 100 or larger would be lieutenant commander. An Akira, Nebula, Galaxy, Sovereign, or larger would have to be a senior commander or better.

This is just a rule of thumb I use.

(Is there any way to set a tab here?)

Ship Type..........Captain..........Department Head

• Flagship..........Fleet Captain..........Lt. Commander
• Explorer..........Captain..........Lt. Commander
• Battleship..........Captain..........Lt. Commander
• Cruiser..........Captain..........Lieutenant
• Frigate..........Commander..........Lieutenant
• Scout..........Commander..........Lieutenant
• Destroyer..........Lt. Commander..........Lieutenant, jg
• Escort..........Lt. Commander..........Lieutenant, jg
• Gunboat..........Lieutenant..........Lieutenant, jg
• Surveyor..........Lieutenant..........Ensign
• Courier..........Lieutenant, jg..........Ensign
• Runabout..........Lieutenant, jg..........Ensign
• Shuttle..........Ensign..........N/A

Notes:
Warrant Officers, Junior Grade may hold Lieutenant rank slots.
Warrant Officers may hold Lt. Commander rank slots.
Master Chief Petty Officers may hold Lt. Commander rank slots.
Senior Chief Petty Officers may hold Lieutenant rank slots.
Chief Petty Officers may hold Lieutenant, jg rank slots.

Now I know I've used ship designs not used by Starfleet, but this list is used by all races in my game.

Well considering command officer I think Trek has been quite unrealistic all the time. In fact it is highly unlikely to have a Captain command a ship with only 40 crewmembers ( Defiant ) or 80 ( Equinox ). At least in "Equinox" we see that the XO is only Full Lieutenant and considering that 80 is roughly company strength it would not be surprising to have a Full Lt. as commanding officer. Then again CO's of ships have special priviliges and duties other officers of more stationary posts have not ( e.g. a Captain, army rank speaking, of a infantry company will highly unlikely make a diplomatic contacts, a CO of a starship probably will ).
So I would say for a Defiant-Class a Full Lt. is in order especially since its an escort vessel that will only rarely operate alone and most certainly not in diplomatic duties.
When considering ranks for officers I simply stick to our real-life military, which is is pretty consistent so far, although of course specialized units may have higher ranks than ordinary ones. I use the following system, depending on crewmembers. CO and XO ranks can be the same ( especially with low ranking officers ), although usually the XO has one rank less than the superior:

crew rank
<10 Ensign
<60 Lieutenant j.g. - Lieutenant
<160 Lieutenant - Lt. Cmdr
<500 Lt. Cmdr - Cmdr
<1000 Cmdr. - Captain
<1500 Captain - Admiral

I usually take the higher rank for mobile fleet ships and the lower rank for stationary fleets. Experimental ships, etc. can have higher ranks as well.
In fact I always wondered why Picard never was promoted to Admiral, considering todays regularies being the CO of the flagship with 1200 people onboard should suffice for a Rear-Admiral ( lower half ) position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sea Tyger

Actually, I don't think Starfleet would lower their rank requirements to the point of putting a lieutenant in charge of a Saber or Defiant.

At the very minimum, they'd probably take a lieutenant commander and brevet him to the rank of commander until he achieves the permanent promotion.

For a Steamrunner or Norway, a commander can fill the role. Rather than brevet a lieutenant commander to a ship of this size, Starfleet would probably just promote the officer early.

---

Let's not forget that Woof...er, Worf...was nominally in command of Defiant a helluva lot of the time. For a Defiant-class vessel, I'd say a lieutenant commander could reasonably be given command, without the brevet being necessary. I think anything bigger would be at least a commander.

This, of course, from the guy who was putting a lieutenant commander in the captain's chair of a King's Protector-class in his own aborted campaign...your mileage may vary.

So if it weren't for the diplomacy stuff, Voyager shouldn't have had a Captain?

I think Equinox was an extreme situation as far as the writers are concerned because people had been dying.

According to you, Evan, it sounds like the No Bloody A, B, C, or D shouldn't have had a captain. Maybe it was different because there were only a handful of Constitutions and they were top of the line?

I always remember the EntD having about 1000, not 1200. Did the Ent-E have 1200? Maybe they wanted to make him an Admiral but he managed to avoid it? But your comments go against the standard Trek opinion of Admiralty... Maybe in the 23rd century there was only one admiral rank? nah, that wouldn't make much sense I guess.