I mean, Soyuz or Ranger-based series were a thing, so. Some are going to be going outdated.
Right, but as of this time, the "oldest" ship classes we have in service in nontrivial numbers are the Constellations and Mirandas, which are 2270-vintage designs, mostly constructed in the 2280s or later, and only very recently refitted with 2310-vintage technology. And it's only 2322. They are nowhere near the point at which we would normally decommission military equipment in the modern era, assuming it isn't physically falling apart, and assuming it hasn't become truly incapable of achieving its mission.

The one wildcard there is Cheron, which has, again, so far been able to compete as (in effect) a reasonably good cruiser.

That is remarkably sneaky. Why don't we do that?
Because none of our core ship classes look similar enough to one another. The closest we could come would be to advertise an un-refitted ship as a refitted ship, and we've already refitted nearly all our pre-2300 designs, some of them twice, so there's not much point in it.

You can't convincingly pass off a Connie as a Renaissance or a Miranda as a Centaur-B, in other words.

The reason we need to scrap our older ships is one I've already stated before. They're past their original time of retirement...
No, no they factually are not, because those ship classes were being used effectively by Starfleet clear up through the mid-2300s. And I do mean 'effective.' If all those Constellations and Mirandas we saw in TNG weren't cost-effective to operate, Starfleet would not have continued operating them. There is no canon support for the idea that those starships were already 'obsolete' in 2320. This is a complete brainbug.

...and are going to be increasingly useless as time passes.
There is some threshold at which having a weak ship to respond to an event is worse than having NO ship to respond to that event. I'm honestly not sure where it occurs. Do you have a mathematically rigorous proof that the Miranda-A has passed this point? If so, please present it. If not, please stop advancing the counterintuitive claim that it would be better to retire the Mirandas than to keep using them, when there is no clear evidence of mechanical breakdowns and when they continue to provide occasional event response and frequent support on other ships' event response.

...Keeping older vessels in service longer just means more resources spent on keeping them in service...
You do realize we don't even have a budget for ship maintenance and that we aren't even being asked to do accounting for the cost of "keeping them in service," right?

...and more ships and crew being lost when we inevitably go to war against a power with more advanced ships for their mainline.

JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN CANON VS THE BORG AND THE DOMINION.
What happened in canon was the ships being thrown against a militarily superior opponent. We don't have to do that, we can perfectly easily use the ships as rear area garrison and emergency responders to events while concentrating modern ships on the front lines.
 
Put bluntly, this is probably the worst way to get them back, because it risks their lives. The Hishmeri are assholes, but they can be negotiated with. Once we have our people back we can go back to blowing them up.
It isn't good policy to reward kidnappers and hostage takers by being less resolute in opposing them once they've taken hostages.

I don't advocate we start systematically blowing up Hishmeri civilians or anything like that, but the last thing we want to do is give them a reason to keep targeting our civilians by rolling over and letting them wreak havoc as they please after they did it once. That's the very epitome of a perverse incentive. There need to be consequences for what they did, something to demonstrate to them that attacking a Federation colony is a Very Bad Idea (tm).
 
Last edited:
The reason we need to scrap our older ships is one I've already stated before. They're past their original time of retirement, and are going to be increasingly useless as time passes. Keeping older vessels in service longer just means more resources spent on keeping them in service, and more ships and crew being lost when we inevitably go to war against a power with more advanced ships for their mainline.

JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN CANON VS THE BORG AND THE DOMINION.

Constie-A is C3 S4 H2 L3 P3 D4 for 2/4/2 50sr. For response purposes that's -1P -1D over a Centaur-B, which is not a significant difference. Scrapping one gives us 25SR and the crew... and we aren't heavily crew-limited at the moment. We would need to scrap multiple ships to make up the cost for a new ship.

ConnieB is C5 S3 H3 L5 P3 D5. So -1SP compared to a Centaur-B, and we could get 3-4-3 crew and 40SR from scrapping it. Again, multiple ships to scrap and replace with CBs. Actually only -1H compared to a Rennie, so a decent fighter.

This also ignores Veterancy (which is the major reason to keep ships in service) as many of our Consties are Blooded, giving them a C4 S5 H3 L4 P4 D4 statline (+1SH -1D over a CB). A Blooded ConnieB is equal to or better than a CB in all categories.

We also need to consider that we have only so many berths, and many are already filled. We can't snap our fingers and simply replace older ships even if we had the ability to scrap right away.
 
Last edited:
So, a quick question that I would like to bring to discussion:

What should the tests of a Task Force be like?

My opinion is that, the simple fact of dedicating a task force to a problem generates a number of event checks, which are heavily weighted to be easy or very easy but have a chance to be moderate and a small chance to be difficult, which are directly related to the problem that the task force is handling. And the number of these event checks is related to the number of ships in the task force. And that in general, these events should skip the D check until such point as the task force is stretched thin by number of events over time

My reasoning is thus: the simple fact that you are dedicating ships to a problem means that they are going to go out and try to proactively handle issues, before they get to be a problem, rather than reacting to existing problems, means that they will already be on hand and able to respond before such a point that the event would even get to be an issue. There also being lots of 'easy' events means it is very very profitable to dedicate large tasks forces to problems, and they become worth their weight in gold (since we're pre-replicators...), when you want a problem solved.

I think that whatever behind the scenes system is actually being used, is maybe not generous enough to model the benefit of large numbers of well-equipped people proactively trying to prevent problems and achieve goals?
 
... Somewhere indirectly in the logistics computations?
Okay, but I'm not seeing any attempt to prove that these costs are significant compared to the benefits of having the ship available.

I think that whatever behind the scenes system is actually being used, is maybe not generous enough to model the benefit of large numbers of well-equipped people proactively trying to prevent problems and achieve goals?
To be fair, the task forces we've got are currently ALL being actively opposed by other large groups of well-equipped people proactively trying to cause problems and inhibit goals... for us.

Our anti-Horizon task force is being opposed by the Horizon, our recruit-Dawiar task force is being opposed by the Cardassians, and our anti-Hishmeri task force is, understandably, being opposed by the entire Hishmeri armada.
 
Last edited:
... Somewhere indirectly in the logistics computations?
There is a presence in the logistics for upkeep of ships and installations (where the installations are not near a major world), yes.

But.
As one of the people who has yelled the most about our auxiliary shortage, the way out of that problem is not to get rid of our response capable ships. We need more of every single kind of hull we can get our mitts on and if we could get away with it politically, I'd be willing to make some sort of deal for old Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian/Harmony/Commonwealth ships that we could crew and put up for the other surrounding powers to deal with in a complicated game of musical hulls.

We can't and Breifvoice would crawl out of my monitor to strangle me for complicating the deployment plans so, but the way out is to build, not to tear down.
 
The reason we need to scrap our older ships is one I've already stated before. They're past their original time of retirement, and are going to be increasingly useless as time passes. Keeping older vessels in service longer just means more resources spent on keeping them in service, and more ships and crew being lost when we inevitably go to war against a power with more advanced ships for their mainline.

JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN CANON VS THE BORG AND THE DOMINION.
The combat engine actually rewards this behavior. More ships are more targets for the engine to assign hits to the more hits are dispersed across shields. A Miranda-A being catastrophically destroyed (warp core breach) loses us 4 crew. A Ambassador loss would lose us 23ish. Losing an Miranda in the line of fire is often worth it if an Explorer isn't several damaged. In fact there were ship designs proposed to put the cheapest, most durable ships possible into vanguard phase to reduce crew losses.

Its worth mentioning that a Miranda A is about 1/3 as durable as an Ambassador for 20% of the hull cost and 17% the crew cost. That doesn't even account for evasion, which should increase the relative durability.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't arguing that we should scrap ships, merely stating that I thought there might be something related to upkeep in the logistics part - a part I happily ignore after having taken one cursory look. Means, I couldn't say we don't use upkeep, just that I don't see a upkeep but that there might be something in logistics.
 
The reason we need to scrap our older ships is one I've already stated before. They're past their original time of retirement, and are going to be increasingly useless as time passes. Keeping older vessels in service longer just means more resources spent on keeping them in service, and more ships and crew being lost when we inevitably go to war against a power with more advanced ships for their mainline.

JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN CANON VS THE BORG AND THE DOMINION.
Under current scrap-and-build mechanics the choice is between 2 to 4 prior gen ships and one current gen ship. We're not combat capped, and we're primarily limited by SR, which we only IIRC get 50% refunds on.

The only one of our current designs that even close to obsolete, as opposed to obsolescent is the Miranda-class, because the only thing it can do is provide extra cheap hulls in Heavy Metal. And that's a very dubious role to have a ship for.

It doesn't need to be retired, because for now a Miranda is probably worth more than 1/3 of a Centaur-B or 1/4 of a Comet. When we hit combat cap THEN it might make sense to see if any member worlds are interested or to stick them in a proper boneyard and replace with Centaurs or Comets depending on whether we're crew or SR limited.
Constie-A is C3 S4 H2 L3 P3 D4 for 2/4/2 50sr. For response purposes that's -1P -1D over a Centaur-B, which is not a significant difference. Scrapping one gives us 25SR and the crew... and we aren't heavily crew-limited at the moment. We would need to scrap multiple ships to make up the cost for a new ship.

ConnieB is C5 S3 H3 L5 P3 D5. So -1SP compared to a Centaur-B, and we could get 3-4-3 crew and 40SR from scrapping it. Again, multiple ships to scrap and replace with CBs. Actually only -1H compared to a Rennie, so a decent fighter.

This also ignores Veterancy (which is the major reason to keep ships in service) as many of our Consties are Blooded, giving them a C4 S5 H3 L4 P4 D4 statline (+1SH -1D over a CB). A Blooded ConnieB is equal to or better than a CB in all categories.

We also need to consider that we have only so many berths, and many are already filled. We can't snap our fingers and simply replace older ships even if we had the ability to scrap right away.
It's the Constie-As that are all Blooded. Only two blooded Connie-Bs.

Connie-B is 3-4-4. If crew limited scrapping one frees up the crew for two Centaur-B, 1 and 1/3 Comet or one Kepler builds.

Connie-Bs are enough of a crew hog that if we're at combat cap and crew limited phasing them out is a good idea.

Edit: Note that scrapping ships with crew levels is a terrible idea even if combat capped, as crew skill bonuses do not count towards that cap.
 
Last edited:
Build plan Options:

So in Plan A we go in for a 9 Kepler wave. I also slip in a Renaissance here, mainly because I want to keep one berth going with Renaissance serial production with the goal of getting to 20 Rennies in the fleet. However you'll see some empty 3mt berths... in order to do the Kepler wave, we will have to hold off on starting more than 1 Ambassador this year.

[no vote][BUILD] 2322 A: 1 Ambassador, 9 Keplers, 1 Renaissance, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship
  • SF Berth A (3mt) – Leave empty.
  • SF Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence building Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • SF Berth 2 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence building Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)

  • Oreasa Starfleet Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q1 refit Yukikaze to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • Oreasa Starfleet Berth 2 (1mt) – Building Centaur-B. (ETC 2323.Q4)

  • 40 Eridani Berth A (3mt) – Building Tellarite Ambassador (ETC 2326.Q3)
  • 40 Eridani Berth B (3mt) – Berth free 2322.Q4. Leave empty.
  • 40 Eridani Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q1 refit Zephyr to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • 40 Eridani Berth 2 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Commence Kepler (ETC 2324.Q3)

  • Ana Font Berth A (2.5mt) – In 2322.Q1 begin refit of Rru'adorr to Excelsior-A (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • Ana Font Berth 1 (1mt) – Building Renaissance (ETC 2323.Q2)
  • Ana Font Berth 2 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Commence Kepler (ETC 2324.Q3)

  • LOCF Berth A (2.5mt) – In 2322.Q1 begin refit of Pleezirra to Excelsior-A (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • LOCF Berth 1 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Refit Gale to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q2)

  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth A (3mt) – Leave empty.
  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth 1 (1mt) – Building Renaissance (ETC 2323.Q2).
  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth 2 (1mt) – Building Comet prototype. (ETC 2325.Q3)

  • UP Berth A (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth B (3mt) – Commence Ambassador using 'serial production' industrial park bonus, as only I quarter gap in berth since completion of prototype. (ETC 2325.Q4)
  • UP Berth C (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth D (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth E (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth F (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)

  • UP Berth Z (2mt) – Building Starfleet Super-freighter. (ETC 2325.Q2)
  • UP Berth Y (2mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. In 2322.Q2 commence Starfleet Hospital Ship. (ETC 2325.Q2)
  • UP Berth X (2mt) – Berth complete 2322.Q4. Leave empty.

  • UP Berth 1 (1mt) – Commence Renaissance using 'serial construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q2)
  • UP Berth 2 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 3 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 4 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 5 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 6 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)

Plan B is a minor variation where we just go ahead and build 10 Keplers and don't start a Renaissance.

[no vote][BUILD] 2322 B: 1 Ambassador, 10 Keplers, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship
  • SF Berth A (3mt) – Leave empty.
  • SF Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence building Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • SF Berth 2 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence building Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)

  • Oreasa Starfleet Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q1 refit Yukikaze to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • Oreasa Starfleet Berth 2 (1mt) – Building Centaur-B. (ETC 2323.Q4)

  • 40 Eridani Berth A (3mt) – Building Tellarite Ambassador (ETC 2326.Q3)
  • 40 Eridani Berth B (3mt) – Berth free 2322.Q4. Leave empty.
  • 40 Eridani Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q1 refit Zephyr to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • 40 Eridani Berth 2 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Commence Kepler (ETC 2324.Q3)

  • Ana Font Berth A (2.5mt) – In 2322.Q1 begin refit of Rru'adorr to Excelsior-A (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • Ana Font Berth 1 (1mt) – Building Renaissance (ETC 2323.Q2)
  • Ana Font Berth 2 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Commence Kepler (ETC 2324.Q3)

  • LOCF Berth A (2.5mt) – In 2322.Q1 begin refit of Pleezirra to Excelsior-A (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • LOCF Berth 1 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Refit Gale to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q2)

  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth A (3mt) – Leave empty.
  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth 1 (1mt) – Building Renaissance (ETC 2323.Q2).
  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth 2 (1mt) – Building Comet prototype. (ETC 2325.Q3)

  • UP Berth A (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth B (3mt) – Commence Ambassador using 'serial production' industrial park bonus, as only I quarter gap in berth since completion of prototype. (ETC 2325.Q4)
  • UP Berth C (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth D (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth E (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth F (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)

  • UP Berth Z (2mt) – Building Starfleet Super-freighter. (ETC 2325.Q2)
  • UP Berth Y (2mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. In 2322.Q2 commence Starfleet Hospital Ship. (ETC 2325.Q2)
  • UP Berth X (2mt) – Berth complete 2322.Q4. Leave empty.

  • UP Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 2 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 3 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 4 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 5 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 6 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)

Plan C goes in a whole different direction, getting in 2 more Ambassador builds by dropping 5 Keplers.

[no vote][BUILD] 2322 C: 3 Ambassadors, 5 Keplers, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship
  • SF Berth A (3mt) – Commence Ambassador (ETC 2326.Q4)
  • SF Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence building Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • SF Berth 2 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence building Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)

  • Oreasa Starfleet Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q1 refit Yukikaze to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • Oreasa Starfleet Berth 2 (1mt) – Building Centaur-B. (ETC 2323.Q4)

  • 40 Eridani Berth A (3mt) – Building Tellarite Ambassador (ETC 2326.Q3)
  • 40 Eridani Berth B (3mt) – Berth free 2322.Q4. Leave empty.
  • 40 Eridani Berth 1 (1mt) – In 2322.Q1 refit Zephyr to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • 40 Eridani Berth 2 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Leave empty.

  • Ana Font Berth A (2.5mt) – In 2322.Q1 begin refit of Rru'adorr to Excelsior-A (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • Ana Font Berth 1 (1mt) – Building Renaissance (ETC 2323.Q2)
  • Ana Font Berth 2 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Leave empty.

  • LOCF Berth A (2.5mt) – In 2322.Q1 begin refit of Pleezirra to Excelsior-A (ETC 2323.Q1)
  • LOCF Berth 1 (1mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. Refit Gale to Centaur-B (ETC 2323.Q2)

  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth A (3mt) – Commence Ambassador (ETC 2326.Q4)
  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth 1 (1mt) – Building Renaissance (ETC 2323.Q2).
  • Intazzi Shipyard Berth 2 (1mt) – Building Comet prototype. (ETC 2325.Q3)

  • UP Berth A (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth B (3mt) – Commence Ambassador using 'serial production' industrial park bonus, as only I quarter gap in berth since completion of prototype. (ETC 2325.Q4)
  • UP Berth C (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth D (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth E (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)
  • UP Berth F (3mt) – Building Ambassador using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2325.Q3)

  • UP Berth Z (2mt) – Building Starfleet Super-freighter. (ETC 2325.Q2)
  • UP Berth Y (2mt) – Berth free 2322.Q2. In 2322.Q2 commence Starfleet Hospital Ship. (ETC 2325.Q2)

  • UP Berth X (2mt) – Berth complete 2322.Q4. Leave empty.
  • UP Berth 1 (1mt) – Leave empty.
  • UP Berth 2 (1mt) – Leave empty
  • UP Berth 3 (1mt) – Leave empty
  • UP Berth 4 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 5 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)
  • UP Berth 6 (1mt) – In 2322.Q2 commence Kepler using 'parallel construction' industrial park bonus. (ETC 2324.Q1)


[X][BUILD] 2322 A: 1 Ambassador, 9 Keplers, 1 Renaissance, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship

I am voting for Plan A. My reasoning is that we're going to want UP free for a wave of Comets when the Comet prototype completes, and it will just barely be possible to slip two Kepler waves in between now and then if we get started this year. Note that this doesn't mean we won't build those Ambassadors... we'll just start them in 2323 instead of 2322.

[][AUX] Blessed Skywomb Yards

[X][AUX] Betazed Unity Shipyards
 
Last edited:
[X][BUILD] 2322 A: 1 Ambassador, 9 Keplers, 1 Renaissance, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship

[X][AUX] Broadened Horizons

// @ Briefvoice - thanks.
 
Last edited:
[X][BUILD] 2322 C: 3 Ambassadors, 5 Keplers, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship

MORE AMBASSADORS :D
 
[X][BUILD] 2322 A: 1Ambassador, 9 Keplers, 1 Renaissance, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship


@Briefvoice thanks! Those are the last two Excelsiors for refit, yes?
 
Last edited:
[X][BUILD] 2322 A: 1 Ambassador, 9 Keplers, 1 Renaissance, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship
 
2322.Q1

Current Construction

1 TSF Ambassador (NCC-3909) @ 40 Eridani A Fleet Yards Berth A (ETC 2326.Q3)
1 Cargo Ship (NCC-3729) @ 40 Eridani A Fleet Yards Berth B (ETC 2322.Q4)
1 Kepler Prototype (NX-4101) @ 40 Eridani A Fleet Yards Berth 2 (ETC 2322.Q2)

1 Renaissance (NCC-2632) @ Ana Font Shipyard Berth 1 (ETC 2323.Q2 - Crews deduct 2322.Q2)
1 Renaissance (NCC-2631) @ Ana Font Shipyard Berth 2 (ETC 2322.Q2 - Crews deduct 2321.Q2)

1 Refit [USS Winterwind] (NCC-2104) @ Lor'Vela OCF Berth 1 (ETC 2322.Q2)

1Centaur-B (NCC-2147) @ Oreasa Shipyards Berth 2 (ETC 2323.Q4 - Crews deduct 2322.Q4)

1 Renaissance (NCC-2633) @ Intazzi Shipyards Berth 1 (ETC 2323.Q2 - Crews deduct 2322.Q2)
1 Comet-class Prototype (NX-5101) @ Intazzi Shipyards Berth 2 (ETC 2325.Q3 - Crews deduct 2324.Q3)

5 Ambassador-class (NCC-3903, NCC-3904, NCC-3905, NCC-3906, NCC-3907) @ Utopia Planitia Berths A, C, D, E, F (ETC 2325.Q3 - Crews deduct - 2324.Q3)
2 Refit [USS Sirocco, USS Chinook] Centaur-B (NCC-2130, NCC-2131) @ Utopia Planitia Berth Y, 6 (ETC 2322.Q2)

@OneirosTheWriter you are missing a build. We have a Super-Freighter under construction @ Utopia Planitia Berth Z (ETC 2325.Q2)

1 Super-Freighter (NCC-3621) @ Ferasa Aux Berth A
2 Freighter (NCC-3622, NCC-3623) @ Ferasa Aux Berth 1, 2
1 Comfort (NCC-3505) @ Ferasa Aux Berth 3
1 SI Civilian Ship (NC-2944) @ Ferasa Aux Berth 4

Noooo! What is this bullshit? You've got to call them the Modern Engineering Orbital Workshop (MEOW) yards now... we voted on it. :D
 
[X][BUILD] 2322 A: 1 Ambassador, 9 Keplers, 1 Renaissance, 3 Centaur-B Refits, 2 Excelsior Refits, 1 Hospital Ship
 
The combat engine actually rewards this behavior. More ships are more targets for the engine to assign hits to the more hits are dispersed across shields. A Miranda-A being catastrophically destroyed (warp core breach) loses us 4 crew. A Ambassador loss would lose us 23ish. Losing an Miranda in the line of fire is often worth it if an Explorer isn't several damaged. In fact there were ship designs proposed to put the cheapest, most durable ships possible into vanguard phase to reduce crew losses.

Its worth mentioning that a Miranda A is about 1/3 as durable as an Ambassador for 20% of the hull cost and 17% the crew cost. That doesn't even account for evasion, which should increase the relative durability.
Sticky targeting somewhat decreases the advantages you described (I remember us talking about this during the early fighting in the Gabriel Expanse). More generally, yes a frigate like a Miranda-A is helpful in the "Heavy Metal" phase of a pitched battle. The main problem is that Mirandas are grossly unsatisfactory in the scouting and skirmishing phases of battle, which is an area frigates tend to wind up doing a lot in.
 
Back
Top