Promotion/Commission interaction

[Reban]

See that the algorithm shown by Spartan does not match with the sequence given by mvdwege, so I cannot tell which of them is the correct one in T5.

The proper sequence (specifically for Soldier career after errata 0.6) is:
Promotion Officer --> Commission --> Promotion Enlisted


The actual sequence whether you've applied errata or not doesn't affect the point I was making that you don't get multiple promotions in a term.

In previous versions, if you went to Accademy (or OTC/NOTC in College) you began the second term as O1, while if you were promoted from the ranks (via comisión/OCS) you could begin it as O2. That made posible to have a quicker career in you promoted from ranks tan in you attand Accademy/College (unless you attand medical school, in which case you ended second term as O3).

Yes it makes it possible to have a quicker career, but does it make better officers? You spend four years as a private, you score well on a test, go to officer school and you become an 1st Lieutenant (O2). You've been a private all your career but now you can go straight into the role of commanding a platoon? Thats without any time learning how to command a section and learning all the practicalities of being an officer. It would be okay to start at O2 if you'd risen to be an NCO of Sergeant rank and done a very similar job to a junior officer. Thats the real world view.

The in game explanation is that T5 assigns skills differently during the course of your career, so you don't have to worry about gaining high rank before you muster out unless you want some of the automatic skills that go with rank or you want the maximum from your muster out benefits.

 

[aramis]

For comparison purposes only: The US Military requires a Bachelor's Degree (4 year) for full commission, and even OCS requires a BA. with a few exceptions for 2 year state militia academies, even Reserve Commissions now require a 4 year for commissioning.

Many NCO's who would have been commissioned in the 1960's with "Reserve Commissions" and no degree now are routed to Warrant Officer. US Warrant Officers are not akin to Commonwealth ones; they are not even on the NATO OR/OF tables, falling between the two.

So, don't try to draw too much from current US military practice; Traveller is grounded in Marc's Vietnam War era Service.

 

[Reban]

Partly. There are three routes to commissioning in the U.S. Army: ROTC, OCS, and West Point. All three are actually options for active duty and reserve component soldiers.

<SNIP>

Again, in the U.S. Army (the only one I can speak of with any authority), Warrant Officers actually *ARE* commissioned officers once they are promoted from WO1 to CW2.

<SNIP>

Yeah, I'm not sure how to properly introduce more "realism" into the system without getting too granular. PLUS, the BA and US Army of 2013 bear little resemblance to the armies of 1913 or 1813. Who KNOWS how things would roll in the Imperium.

Thanks for the expansion on that Poolboy. Like I said I did a quick survey, and I tried to stick to the Traveller parallels. The great thing about COTI is there's always professional inside knowledge available.

Warrant officers in the US are quite different and I have seen suggested reforms to abolish them like the USAF and give tempory warrants to technically qualified contractors.

You're right about the British and US armies of 2013 making an uncertain basis for the rank structure of a stellar empire many centuries in the future. Post WW2 armies in general promote NCOs earlier because the turnover is faster. There was a time when enlisting meant you were in uniform until you could no longer march. More recently minimum terms of 21 years before pensionable discharge were normal (T5 says 16 years service before you get retirement pay and even then you are serving in the reserves).

I tend to think, given Traveller's background, that those enlisting with the Imperial Military will be in for the long haul, so promotion will be slower. For that reason I (generally) like T5's Military careers.

 

[aramis]

It's worth noting that US Warrant Officers are not fully commissioned - the CW2-CW5 are, by law, commissioned by the President, not by Congress, and do not carry full commissioned rank authority. Technically, A CW5 is outranked by a newly minted Ensign/2LT, tho at one point (1890-1919) that was not true of USN Warrants (who ranked as Ensign, LtJG, or Lt, but lacked position to take command if any fully commissioned officer was present.) In practice, a W1-CW2 is comparable to an O1, a CW3-4 to an O2, and a CW5 to an O3... and can be found filling billets for same in the USN.

The term Warrant has a lot of meanings, and its canon use in Traveller is for Senior NCO's (ala the Commonwealth use) (In AHL). The Russian Imperial equivalent was essentially an NCO promoted to officer status, but the Soviet was a Senior NCO.

The models for warrants historically, should you care to impose them in your game:

• Limited Duty Officers (USN 1850's to 1919) - Officers with limited command authority. USN has LDO's in the commissioned corps from 1919 on, under various names.
• Senior NCO's (UK 1800 on, Soviet Russia)
• Appointed full officers without commission (UK 1700's, USN 1776-1850s). Had the same authority as a commissioned officer, but appointed by the Brigadier or Ship's Captain. Technically not a brevet, but similar in practice, as the positions and warrants were authorized.
• Appointed officer specialists without a commission, hired by the Corps level command. (USN 1820's to 1919, UK RN 1700's). Distinctive titles, insignia, and officer uniform. Most notably, Payroll officers, Surgeons, and Engineers.
• Third category between Senior NCOs and commissioned officers (US 1940-present, Imperial Russia). Distinctive insignia, usually officer uniforms. May hold a commission, but not the same kind of commission as a company grade officer, but may have overlapping duties.

IMTU, I don't use the term Warrants for a category of ranks at all.

 

[Higgipedia]

IMTU, I don't use the term Warrants for a category of ranks at all.

I concur with this decision. From a game mechanics standpoint, they are too wonky for me to use.

 

[aramis]

I concur with this decision. From a game mechanics standpoint, they are too wonky for me to use.

THe UK version isn't - it's just a term for E7-E9 ranks. Compares directly to US Senior NCO's.

 

[HG_B]

It's worth noting that US Warrant Officers are not fully commissioned - the CW2-CW5 are, by law, commissioned by the President, not by Congress, and do not carry full commissioned rank authority.

In the US Navy a warrant officer may succeed to command of a ship provided he is authorized to perform all deck duties.

 

[aramis]

In the US Navy a warrant officer may succeed to command of a ship provided he is authorized to perform all deck duties.

And a Non-LDO commissioned officer can do so even if NOT trained in deck duties. The warrants, on paper, are still (by law, no less) junior to all commissioned ensigns. Not that, in practice, the ensign dares pull rank, for the same reasons an ensign better be careful with correcting a CPO. (Especially with so many CWO's being former CPO's.) Plus, the whole nasty issue of positional authority and line of command succession, which can put a CWO in before a given ensign... For example, when the CWO is the Chief Engineer, and the Ensign's the Admin officer.... but that still doesn't make the CWO outrank the Ensign (even tho' the effect is similar).

 

[McPerth]

(correct me if I'm wrong on this point).

As I already told, I have no access to T5, so I trust you in what it says (and, after all, I have no reason not to).

The proper sequence (specifically for Soldier career after errata 0.6) is:
Promotion Officer --> Commission --> Promotion Enlisted


The actual sequence whether you've applied errata or not doesn't affect the point I was making that you don't get multiple promotions in a term.

If that also applies to commision and promotion the same term, then it has changed from previous versions. That was the only point I said, as I cannot dicuss you what a book I havn't read says.

Yes it makes it possible to have a quicker career, but does it make better officers? You spend four years as a private, you score well on a test, go to officer school and you become an 1st Lieutenant (O2). You've been a private all your career but now you can go straight into the role of commanding a platoon? Thats without any time learning how to command a section and learning all the practicalities of being an officer. It would be okay to start at O2 if you'd risen to be an NCO of Sergeant rank and done a very similar job to a junior officer. Thats the real world view.

I cannot answer that, as my real world military experience is even less than my knowledge of T5.

 

[aramis]

OCS has ranged historically from 6 weeks to a year. My mom did 4 months. Not enough to take a full term...

Mom went from a civilian to a 2 Lt. in 15 months, and to 1Lt in under 30 months. (I just asked her).

 

[Reban]

As I already told, I have no access to T5, so I trust you in what it says (and, after all, I have no reason not to).



If that also applies to commision and promotion the same term, then it has changed from previous versions. That was the only point I said, as I cannot dicuss you what a book I havn't read says.



I cannot answer that, as my real world military experience is even less than my knowledge of T5.

Eh McPerth you do understand that everyone can read what I wrote and I was not addressing you directly when I requested anyone reading my post to correct me if I was in error? I try not to address only the person I'm replying to but also anyone who might be reading the thread. Sorry if you thought I was being obtuse or rude. Maybe I tend to slip into lecture mode.

 

[Reban]

IMTU, I don't use the term Warrants for a category of ranks at all.

Likewise IMTU I don't have warrant officers in my Imperial Army or Imperial Marine Corps, they are just Senior NCO's with the most senior being the Regimental Sergeant Major based on the British system.

I do use Warrant Officers IMTU for the Imperial Navy. I'm heavily influenced by the age of Sail in the Georgian and Victorian periods. The simple definition I use is that a WO is appointed by warrant from the Imperial Navy as apposed to a Commission from the Emperor for Officers.

Warrants are awarded to senior NCO's who specialize in some area and are assigned to a ship (some may be standing officers who remain with a ship even when it goes out of commission), Pursers, Boatswains, Gunners, Armorers, Instructors, Band Masters etc. They rank as senior NCO's but have special qualifications leading to special duties. IMTU a warrant has no effect on career resolution but fleshes out the crew roles.

 

[HG_B]

And a Non-LDO commissioned officer can do so even if NOT trained in deck duties.

Of course. It's been that way since day one of the U.S. Navy. I was simply clarifying/refining your comment about the WO's & command authority.

IMTU WO's are in command of Naval small craft.

 

[mvdwege]

Thanks all for the insight. I had overlooked the printed errata, and it answers my question perfectly as regards the interpretation of the rule.

I am not going to wade into the discussion whether or not the rule makes any sense. I can see it going either way.

 

[mhwittek]

In the real world enlisted personnel commissioned as officers usually advance to a rank higher than an officer fresh out of the academy pretty quickly.

So I would go with the sequence as written.

One thing that I didn't hear was a commission could represent a battlefield commission which fallout the normal promotion cycle; hence, the other versions of Traveller are more accurate given an example fictitious characters getting a commission then a promotion the same term. Besides, players will only be able to win the benefits of a commission once, so I don't see any major shift in the balance of power for the player due two effect promotion promotions in one term.

A couple of other points to Traveller's weak promotion rules. First, to continue the conversation about the commission and promotion the same term. Most see this as an unfair advantage somehow, but there is a cost that gets worse as character development continues. Benefits gained from retirement is partially calculated on the final rank of the character. Since a commission starts you off at O1, you are messed up if you land a commission in the last term of service before you retire. E9 makes more money than O1.

Lastly, this whole idea that you can only get one promotion per 4 year, it has ways rubbed me the wrong way. Most enlisted are E6 or E7 by the time the have put 20 years in military. Officers are little less with O5 or O6 in the same time period. That means there is more than one possibility to get promoted in four year period.

My Thoughts,

 

[rancke]

Many years ago when I ran a naval campaign, I changed the promotion rules for officers slightly. If it was less than four years since your last promotion, but you were either good or noble, you got a promotion roll at -4 each year. 'Good' meant having a skill relevant to your department at 2 or better; 'noble' meant Imperial noble in the IN and duchy navies and parochial noble in system navies. If you were both good AND noble, you got the promotion rolls without the -4. So Imperial nobles could really shoot up the promotion ladder if they had any luck at all with the dice. (Not that any of the PCs were Imperial nobles).


Hans