I used to have a lot of fun up in Deneb. However, one thing that used to drive me crazy was how 'stupid' the capital ships were. Now, maybe that's changed; it has been a long time. Regardless, I still think this would be a fun addition to the war.

My idea is this: Add new missions to the Deneb conflict that contribute to or don't contribute to the win stats tracked for Deneb. This mission would require at least one Admiral from each side to run. In my vision, these Admirals would need to have a high military status based on their activity, whether in Deneb or other military accomplishments, so not just anyone could take these missions without putting in the work. Additional player participation would be ideal.

The mission I have in mind would be a large or weekly skirmish (IIRC) in which the Admiral or Admirals control the capital ships in the fleet to some degree—possibly even the fighter wings. This would be a PVP match of tactical skills controlling capital ships in a massive conflict.

While both sides might have different specific starting resources, those resources would be of equal value in the conflict. It would probably take a lot of tweaking, but I would like to see Admirals able to configure their starting fleet before engaging in battle, which could allow for different strategies to be used.

I prefer that the Admiral remain docked in the flagship to command the fleet, but whatever works.

This would create a new PVP avenue different from what is currently available and reinvigorate the Serco / Itani war.

If this concept works, I can envision it expanding to various scenarios players could choose from.

Aspects of this were definitely a major goal at one time, sketched out in the old Concept of Conflict RFC. The rank structure was intended to underpin the Deneb conflict, and denote the level of individual player influence on that conflict.

Moving ahead to your idea..: How do you see the mechanics of something like this being implemented, in terms of the actual "Command" methodology?

Are you thinking just like.. existing capship-style commands sent via /msg?

I don't have a fixed idea of the mechanics. I think /msg keeps to the spirit of commanding the fleet.

I think a lot would depend on the level of control the 'Admiral' is given. As I mentioned, I think the role should be restricted to strategy rather than active engagement. They might have a strategy or command screen to help them evaluate the changes in the battle. That screen might have control buttons that commands could be bound to. Grabbing the ship's name could be a challenge. The buttons could direct the message to a specific ship.

I see this as more of a strategy role. PVP in VO is great as it is, this would offer a different challenge.

Humm. So, rather than giving NPCs explicit direction, this would be more about choosing unit types based on available resources? So like, prior to a given battle, someone who was specially empowered could set a "ship set" definition for the upcoming single-sector conflict?

What comes to mind is some concern over the level of frustration encountered by an "Admiral" choosing an elaborate unit-type strategy, and then watching the (sometimes dumb) NPCs do a bunch of silly crap and die.

Not that that's any better the way things stand now, but a player is at least not starting from a place of heightened-expectation.

But, it would allow a new method of engaging with the conflict, and the promise of "Admiral" status could add value to a progression system based on active participation.

I'm thinking of choosing the unit types and giving the fleet general instructions.

Being able to change the unit mix makes each engagement potentially challenging in a different way (assuming two Admirals of equal skill)

The Admiral would need to be actively engaged in the conflict by guiding the fleet either by giving broad instructions to all ships or more specific instructions to groups or individual units. Failure to call out timely orders would result in a lack of responsiveness giving the opponent an opportunity to capitalize on.

I like this concept quite a lot. Even if it were to just be capship-style commands to the capital ships in the fleet, it would be a large improvement. Currently, in Deneb, the capship AI can do some less-than-ideal things. The best example is the Teradon's target prioritization strategy. It can be in the midst of assaulting a Constellation, nearly have dropped the shields and ADHD its way to a Trident because they spawned in. Being able to dictate priority targets would be fantastic.

I like the idea of being able to "control" the capships, or give orders to them. Likewise as @darknessrise pointed out, the capships are kinda dumb, where the Constellation is taking heavy fire from an enemy Teradon and under 50% armour and the Allied Teradon is frolicking with a Trident on the other side of the map. I have also seen, purposely or coincidental, an Itani trident flank Serco capships, fighters and bombers, and attacking the Serco Constellation unopposed from the side.

While active "on the fly" coordination might be a bit tough to coordinate, how about the "admirals" can set a specific strategy, array their ships in specific formations with specific orders and maneuvers and also playing off the local terrain (ie Asteroids and stuff). Then when the battle begins they can change their overall "strategy", like switching a Teradon from flanking a Constellation to having it launch an attack on a HAC with the 2 Tridents, which won't be done instantly since the Teradon has to disengage with the Constellation, retreat to the staging area and then launching the attack, which would lead to a whole load of things happening. The fighters and bombers can receive basic commands like "Defend", "Attack", "Concentrate", but otherwise can just do their own thing.