I brought up at some point during the shift last week your expectation that ensigns have a “basic proficiency” for the fighter console and higher ranks to be “good on all consoles”. Since this is the second time you’ve mentioned proficiency, do we have a definition for it? If not, how do we define it?
Basic proficiency: Can fly a shuttle? (non combat)
General proficiency: Can fly a fighter effectively? (combat “certified”)
I think we should also be careful that we not think about TSN fighter tactics in terms of wings of squadrons. Unless we deliberately form up a carrier and a flight group, anyone flying a fighter is almost certainly pulling double duty. Because of this, about the only time I expect a ship trying to field all its fighters in a coordinated fashion is when it is crippled and trying to mount a last ditch defense to get itself repaired enough to run away. In experimenting last weekend, fighters make for great point defense if the ship is getting overwhelmed by drones or otherwise can’t turn around to affect a defense of its own but van Leigh was generally keeping me busy enough flying his ship that simply setting the Phoenix for full reverse and popping out in a fighter wasn’t usually an option. Were I in another position that didn’t require generally constant active window control (note, not an “easier” or “less important” position. I’ll never be as good at Slate or Mundy at timing 2-1-1, Donovan at cycling for invisible contacts, Vaj for actually conserving power, etc.) then it would be more viable.