Reply To: New: Formations, Attack Patterns and Manoeuvres

Terran Stellar Navy Forums (OOC) Division Development New: Formations, Attack Patterns and Manoeuvres Reply To: New: Formations, Attack Patterns and Manoeuvres


Ok, and looking at questions 2 and 3.

A2: As for specific spot to take, it is relatively clear up to three ships from the diagrams given. If there are four or more, it is less clear. There was an earlier document on formation in which the different classes were lined up in terms of the heaviest being towards the front and the lighter vessels taking up rear positions.

A3: I think helms officer can be aware, but shouldn’t necessarily need to know them. When the close formation order comes in, the captain could simply say “form up on Raven, starboard side” indicating the ship should be positioned with Raven to the right hand side of the ship. With close formation, the small delay of captain communicating the order should be negligible, and more experienced helms officer would likely have anticipated the positioning. Rather than leaving it an unstated order, I think it is clearer for a captain to state it though, even if the helm officer is moving there. It will be of a benefit to the one time the captain wants to change the position for some reason or another.

We’d need to indicate clear positions that helm and captain would have to know. Bow (front), Starboard bow (right front – the klingon side!), Starboard (to right), starboard stern (back right), stern (rear), port stern (back left), port (to left), port bow (left front) and back round to bow. The only one that doesn’t sound right is “starboard stern”. The rest sound fine. I have found the word “quarter” used as well as “beam” which would replace some e.g. starboard stern would be starboard quarter, and starboard would be starboard beam.