Just wanna state for the record, one mo' time, that this is the STUPIDEST regulation ever imposed on any fleet, anywhere, ever! (Thank you, VOY, for this and many other contributions of abject stupidity.)
To me that little reg makes sense--if in a (potential) tactical situation, the biggest hitter should be the one calling the shots. I do get that experience and skill will always play a huge part in combat, but sometimes its better to be the one holding the bigger gun
No, it doesn't make sense because tactical superiority isn't always determinable by things that are obvious.
Take a real world example. Let's say the US Navy has this rule. A Nimitz Carrier and an Arleigh Burke destroyer meet up in the Mediterranean and they're both commanded by full-bird Captains.
CV CAPT: I'm in charge because your ship's just an escort and I'm carrying a small air force on my deck.
DDG CAPT: Um, yeah, but two-thirds of my armament is designed to shoot down other people's airplanes, which means all you're carrying on your deck is target practice.
CV CAPT: Well...but...I could launch enough of them to overwhelm your defenses.
DDG CAPT: Unless I use a torpedo to disable your screws, which would mean you can't get wind over your bow, turning your air force into a collection of expensive paperweights.
CV CAPT: What are your orders, sir?
It's even worse in a Star Trek setting because the entire universe is governed by a perverse tactical parity in weapons. Everybody has the pretty laser beams and the sparkly torpedoes. If a Nebula and a Nova meet each other in a space sector the only real tactical advantages the Neb has are size and speed, and the latter is only useful if it's running, since the Nova would be more maneuverable.
There are reasons command is determined by rank and seniority.