Figure a crew compliment on par with one of our WWII destroyers for the Raider.

Don't forget it's Star Wars, though -- droids and heavily automated systems.

True, but they still had way too many gunners. A WWII quad 40mm mount had 5 guys in the tub. A mount captain, two loaders and two gun layers. (Or maybe 7: 4 loaders) Of course there was a bunch of guys passing ammo when the ready rounds were exhausted. In Star Wars they're using directed energy weapons. No need for ammo handlers. Guns are sensor directed; no need for gunn layers. You need one guy to push the ON button. Get rid of some of the turret crews and send them over to damage control and engineering. You need more pocket protectors to maintain the automated systems. Without the white hats the urinals wont flush.

Assume you have at least 3 men per gun turret: 1 to fire, 1 for redundancy in case the first guy eats it, and 1 for quick on-site repairs in the event of minor damage. Alternatively, 1 commander to coordinate with the bridge and other gun crews, 1 gunner to do the shooting, and 1 tech for quick on-site repairs.

Based on what we see in the OT, the large cannon emplacements do require gunners who actually man the things in order to aim and fire them. Since Star Wars is a Heroic setting, this is pretty well necessary, else you'd not have the scene where Han and Luke compete to shoot down TIEs (since the turrets would be automated).

Just wait for some author to Mary Sue it to galaxy shattering levels, and make it so some reb/honorablepirate/emp-done-good steals it and makes the same galaxy it was going to shatter a better warm fuzzy place.

Well it IMO makes sense for smaller ships like the Raider to end up in rebel hands, either through defection, theft, under the table purchase, or capture so no I wouldn't be surprised by the second half of your sentence coming true.

If anyone has seen the crew accommodations on the U.S.S. Olympia docked at Philadelphia compared to the sub docked in Cleveland you can make a fair comparison between the Raider and a Star Destroyer. The Raider would probably be skippered by a senior Lieutenant though he'd be addressed as Captain. The SD would be skippered by a senior captain. No provision on the Raider for VIPs while the SD would have such accommodations for admirals or Vader. Figure a crew compliment on par with one of our WWII destroyers for the Raider. Add a small contingent of Storm Troopers like our Marines and you should come up with a reasonable crew number.

My group usually determines rank of a ship's CO by crew size.

50<=Lieutenant

50-500=Lieutenant Commander

500-2000=Commander

<2000=Captain

Just wait for some author to Mary Sue it to galaxy shattering levels, and make it so some reb/honorablepirate/emp-done-good steals it and makes the same galaxy it was going to shatter a better warm fuzzy place.

Well it IMO makes sense for smaller ships like the Raider to end up in rebel hands, either through defection, theft, under the table purchase, or capture so no I wouldn't be surprised by the second half of your sentence coming true.

If anyone has seen the crew accommodations on the U.S.S. Olympia docked at Philadelphia compared to the sub docked in Cleveland you can make a fair comparison between the Raider and a Star Destroyer. The Raider would probably be skippered by a senior Lieutenant though he'd be addressed as Captain. The SD would be skippered by a senior captain. No provision on the Raider for VIPs while the SD would have such accommodations for admirals or Vader. Figure a crew compliment on par with one of our WWII destroyers for the Raider. Add a small contingent of Storm Troopers like our Marines and you should come up with a reasonable crew number.

My group usually determines rank of a ship's CO by crew size.

50<=Lieutenant

50-500=Lieutenant Commander

500-2000=Commander

<2000=Captain

Well the Nebulon-B's were Imperial Escort ships made to be more affordable for for routine tasks such as convoy escorts, and those were promptly defected or stolen by rebel sympathizers.

However it is not necessarily the size of the ship or the number of crew that determines the rank of the CO. The CO is a position aboard a ship but ships are also organized in squadrons or groups. A destroyer squadron will have a few destroyers, the lead ship may be commander by a Commander while the other 2 might be commandeered by Lt. Commanders. It all depends on what rank is required for the CO billet on that ship. The CO of a carrier may be a captain but everyone knows it is the carrier group commander which is an admiral grad officer that is in charge.

Just wait for some author to Mary Sue it to galaxy shattering levels, and make it so some reb/honorablepirate/emp-done-good steals it and makes the same galaxy it was going to shatter a better warm fuzzy place.

Well it IMO makes sense for smaller ships like the Raider to end up in rebel hands, either through defection, theft, under the table purchase, or capture so no I wouldn't be surprised by the second half of your sentence coming true.

If anyone has seen the crew accommodations on the U.S.S. Olympia docked at Philadelphia compared to the sub docked in Cleveland you can make a fair comparison between the Raider and a Star Destroyer. The Raider would probably be skippered by a senior Lieutenant though he'd be addressed as Captain. The SD would be skippered by a senior captain. No provision on the Raider for VIPs while the SD would have such accommodations for admirals or Vader. Figure a crew compliment on par with one of our WWII destroyers for the Raider. Add a small contingent of Storm Troopers like our Marines and you should come up with a reasonable crew number.

My group usually determines rank of a ship's CO by crew size.

50<=Lieutenant

50-500=Lieutenant Commander

500-2000=Commander

<2000=Captain

Well the Nebulon-B's were Imperial Escort ships made to be more affordable for for routine tasks such as convoy escorts, and those were promptly defected or stolen by rebel sympathizers.

However it is not necessarily the size of the ship or the number of crew that determines the rank of the CO. The CO is a position aboard a ship but ships are also organized in squadrons or groups. A destroyer squadron will have a few destroyers, the lead ship may be commander by a Commander while the other 2 might be commandeered by Lt. Commanders. It all depends on what rank is required for the CO billet on that ship. The CO of a carrier may be a captain but everyone knows it is the carrier group commander which is an admiral grad officer that is in charge.

That's why I mentioned there is probably was no room for a VIP suite on the raider. In WWII terms figure a cruiser or larger for a task force commander. The smaller the ship the less room to spare especially on a combat vessel. And while the admiral is in charge of the carrier group the Captain is still in charge (responsible) for the carrier.

Just wait for some author to Mary Sue it to galaxy shattering levels, and make it so some reb/honorablepirate/emp-done-good steals it and makes the same galaxy it was going to shatter a better warm fuzzy place.

Well it IMO makes sense for smaller ships like the Raider to end up in rebel hands, either through defection, theft, under the table purchase, or capture so no I wouldn't be surprised by the second half of your sentence coming true.

If anyone has seen the crew accommodations on the U.S.S. Olympia docked at Philadelphia compared to the sub docked in Cleveland you can make a fair comparison between the Raider and a Star Destroyer. The Raider would probably be skippered by a senior Lieutenant though he'd be addressed as Captain. The SD would be skippered by a senior captain. No provision on the Raider for VIPs while the SD would have such accommodations for admirals or Vader. Figure a crew compliment on par with one of our WWII destroyers for the Raider. Add a small contingent of Storm Troopers like our Marines and you should come up with a reasonable crew number.

My group usually determines rank of a ship's CO by crew size.

50<=Lieutenant

50-500=Lieutenant Commander

500-2000=Commander

<2000=Captain

Well the Nebulon-B's were Imperial Escort ships made to be more affordable for for routine tasks such as convoy escorts, and those were promptly defected or stolen by rebel sympathizers.

However it is not necessarily the size of the ship or the number of crew that determines the rank of the CO. The CO is a position aboard a ship but ships are also organized in squadrons or groups. A destroyer squadron will have a few destroyers, the lead ship may be commander by a Commander while the other 2 might be commandeered by Lt. Commanders. It all depends on what rank is required for the CO billet on that ship. The CO of a carrier may be a captain but everyone knows it is the carrier group commander which is an admiral grad officer that is in charge.

That's why I mentioned there is probably was no room for a VIP suite on the raider. In WWII terms figure a cruiser or larger for a task force commander. The smaller the ship the less room to spare especially on a combat vessel. And while the admiral is in charge of the carrier group the Captain is still in charge (responsible) for the carrier.

What I posted was our general guidelines. But yeah usually for Alliance task forces our group merges the force commander and flag captain roles. And there are exceptions made for antiquated ships or very new designs as well. For example a GCW era Munifex/Class 1000 Light cruiser would be a Commander's billet for the CO under the guidelines I listed but we usually have them as a Lieutenant Commander's billet because it is so outdated most people of Commander rank in a growing navy don't want to command one and would rather command or even be XO on a newer ship. In contrast my Captain ranked character was assigned as CO of one of the first MC30Cs produced even though our stats for it had it as a Commander size crew.