United States Naval Ranks

[Tibbetts]

I've been playing Naval Action for only a few weeks, but what is the deal with the weird "Commandant" ranks in the USN?  I've been looking all over the place, and so far I haven't been able to see anywhere that the United States Navy had Lieutenant "Commandant" or Master "Commandant" as a rank.

 

The United States Navy was based upon the Royal Navy and their ranks.  Hence, it should be Midshipman, Ensign, Lieutenant - Junior Grade, Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander, and Commander, Captain, Commodore(later became Rear Admiral - Lower Half), Rear Admiral(later the Upper Half was added), Vice Admiral, Admiral.  Fleet Admiral was later added and is reserverd for wartime use only.

 

Whomever 'informed' you that the rank is Lieutenant Commandant and Master Commandant was trolling you, or just plain didn't know and pulled it out of his bum.

 

The following are official United States Navy sites:

 

The Official site of the United States Navy - Ranks Page

 

Naval History and Heritage Command

 

As you can see from the official websites above, the ranks of Lieutenant Commandant and Master Commandant, did not exist in official United States Naval Ranks.

 

Please change the ranks to something close to reality?

 

Regards.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Barberouge

[Sir Texas Sir]

No cause those are modern day ranks, that ranking system didn't come around for some time.  I believe there is another post some where that addresses the ranks of different nations.

 

Even during the civil war they where diffrent.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Navy

 

In the war of 1812 which is more closer to in game time they used Commandant.

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/organization-and-administration/historical-leadership/naval-officers-of-the-war-of-1812.html

[Tibbetts]

So at one short period of time the United States used Commandant as a rank.  It obviously didn't last long, and there weren't many of them it seems.

[Sir Texas Sir]

So at one short period of time the United States used Commandant as a rank.  It obviously didn't last long, and there weren't many of them it seems.

The first Colonial Navy only used the rank of Lt and Captain.  They are using ranks close to the time of the game is based on, not modern time.  Some of the spots also had to be fill up as not all nations had that many ranks around that time.  As a former Navy personnel I would prefer them to keep it this way as it's more realistic than using modern day ranks.

[Tibbetts]

If they need to fill rank space then they should use the official ranks that have been used for the majority of the USN.  Not one short period of time that the USN barely recognizes in official documents.

[Azzak]

No, actual ranks are more historically accurate. The game period is close to 1812.

[admin]

Commandant rank was used for some time. We have decided to use it as well. But if the majority of players propose changes it is very easy to change the names a bit.

[Barberouge]

The ranks are based on 1780-1800 when possible, as stated in the Naval Ranks topic. Thus the American ranks are the ones used during the first years of the Navy (contemporary to the USS Constitution).

[Tibbetts]

Well, I'm glad the USN changed it, because Lieutenant Commandant sounds awful as a rank title. lol...

 

Still, let's at least vote on it.  See where people stand.  If they vote stay as is cool, if not, and want just the Commandant changed to Commander, that's cool as well.  I just hadn't read anything about that rank in USN history so it sorta threw me through a loop of confusion.

 

So I started a vote to see if people wouldn't mind seeing it changed, or, the Commandant ranks at least.  Personally, I'm for just changing the Commandant to Commander and calling it good.  But, hey, if the majority want it to stay as Commandant, and the Admins/Devs agree, cool beans.

 

Regards.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Tibbetts

[Prater]

Keep it as it is, the only thing that isn't correct is Rear Admiral, because the USN did not have admirals at the time, but it is necessary for the game and so the ranks should stay how they currently are.

[Tibbetts]

How is it necessary for the game?  You mean era-wise?

[Prater]

How is it necessary for the game?  You mean era-wise?

No, I said that Rear Admiral is the only non-historical rank, and it is necessary because otherwise there wouldn't be enough ranks for the US faction. What is wrong with Lt Commandant or Master Commandant? They are historical ranks for the era of the game.

[Tibbetts]

The United States Navy obviously thought that the Commandant titles weren't worth keeping and changed them to Commander.  If the Devs are hard pressed for rank titles, then I say use the ones the USN finally decided upon.

 

As for why I don't like Commandant?  It just feels wrong to have a naval rank title Commandant to me, and obviously the USN, since they don't use it any more.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tibbetts

[Prater]

It doesnt matter what they thought in 1838. Game period ends in 1830.

[Van Valkenburg]

I feel like an excellent way to get around the varied rank structures between nations is to maintain the historical ranks and ball several XP levels under one rank if need be. If the USN has fewer ranks in their hierarchy than the RN, then perhaps there should be two levels of XP under the title of Lieutenant and two under Lieutenant-Commanding, Master Commandant, Captain, and Commodore (though that is technically a title and not a rank).

 

I know a player's "progress" is built on XP progression and the Dev Team tried to keep it even across the board, but seeing "Second Lieutenant" as a rank in the USN is funky to me. Technically, they were all Lieutenants and the first, second, third stuff was applied to an individual based on their seniority in the Wardroom. Putting several levels of XP under one rank would also simulate the idea of a Master Commandant making Captain, but being a junior one on the seniority list and thus only being able to command a smaller frigate with a smaller crew. As he becomes more skilled and well-known as a Captain, he is able to recruit more men (advance an XP level) and thus earn command of larger ships.

 

This is a totally tangent idea that should probably get copied and pasted elsewhere... but if the whole XP thing is built around working to bigger ships with bigger crews, why don't we just do away with a "visible" XP system? You fight battles and earn points, which slowly adds numbers to your maximum number of crew. Instead of it being something like 523/2500 XP it could be simply 127 souls. Ranks could be applied to ranges of crew which correspond to the sizes of ships one can command with those crew sizes.

[AKPyrate]

This is a historical game.  Keep within historical guidelines as much as possible.  Just because we can call all these vessels 'tall ships' these days doesn't mean we need to cowtow to modern vernacular.

[Sir Texas Sir]

I feel like an excellent way to get around the varied rank structures between nations is to maintain the historical ranks and ball several XP levels under one rank if need be. If the USN has fewer ranks in their hierarchy than the RN, then perhaps there should be two levels of XP under the title of Lieutenant and two under Lieutenant-Commanding, Master Commandant, Captain, and Commodore (though that is technically a title and not a rank).

 

I know a player's "progress" is built on XP progression and the Dev Team tried to keep it even across the board, but seeing "Second Lieutenant" as a rank in the USN is funky to me. Technically, they were all Lieutenants and the first, second, third stuff was applied to an individual based on their seniority in the Wardroom. Putting several levels of XP under one rank would also simulate the idea of a Master Commandant making Captain, but being a junior one on the seniority list and thus only being able to command a smaller frigate with a smaller crew. As he becomes more skilled and well-known as a Captain, he is able to recruit more men (advance an XP level) and thus earn command of larger ships.

 

This is a totally tangent idea that should probably get copied and pasted elsewhere... but if the whole XP thing is built around working to bigger ships with bigger crews, why don't we just do away with a "visible" XP system? You fight battles and earn points, which slowly adds numbers to your maximum number of crew. Instead of it being something like 523/2500 XP it could be simply 127 souls. Ranks could be applied to ranges of crew which correspond to the sizes of ships one can command with those crew sizes.

I actually like this as a way to fill out those ranks that needed a spot.   It's like current day ranks where you get pay more for more time in service.  A one year LT would not have the same responsibility as a Lt that has been around and served active for a few years before making his next rank or command.

[CaptVonGunn]

Why would we use modern ranks in a game set in the 18th and 19th century?

[Crayon]

Maybe with the 'Such as a lord' upcoming patch, this would work. For the rank of Fleet Admiral for example, only 4 people at a time can have this rank and they have it for life. It was created to give naval officers similar rank as General of the Army would have and made infrastructure easier to handle.