Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
The argument seems to be that because we don't have the technology to design that new escort right now, we should postpone updating the tactical requirements. Furthermore there is debate on whether to update the 'combat escort' or 'generalist escort' design, because it may well be that we'd be better off designing a generalist escort and using it in combat.

Nix said:
Actually we aren't all that bad off with our current designs + the Kepler. A fleet of something like 2 Kepler, 2 Centaur-A, 1 Constellation-A for the skirmish line, 2 Renaissance, 1 Constitution-B 3 Miranda-A for the vanguard and 2 Excelsiors 1 Ambassador for the heavy metal would do perfectly fine. That would be a pretty good fit for the current combat system, far better than anyone else with a fleet with designs for the old system has. Miranda-As are fine for the vanguard (except for not being cheap enough to be truly expendable, but we aren't going to replace them anyway so the cost doesn't really matter anymore), they just suck for the skirmish line, but 3 out of those 8 classes are a reasonably good fit so it's not like it's a hole in our capabilities we have nothing to fill with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What concerns me is that the Cardassians are going to have tactically significant numbers of refit cruisers hitting us within the next few years, and while SWB may be overestimating just how powerful they really are, they could well be strong enough to present major problems for the current generation of designs. Unless we start planning to counter them with frigates that have the kind of astounding durability I've seen from a lot of the recent design concepts, and with the intention of developing a next-generation cruiser competitive with the current Excelsior-A statline.

Otherwise we're going to end up going back to all our ship classes being outgunned by their Cardassian opposite numbers except the big heavy expensive explorers... and as Sousa once pointed out to Kahurangi, we're not going to be able to build one of our top-end explorers for every one of their cruisers.
 
Simon_Jester said:
@SynchronizedWritersBlock and while we're at it @Nix ...

Important question. We've got several proposed ship design ideas in the foreseeable future that have gotten a lot of discussion- particularly the combat frigate, generalist frigate, and heavy cruiser.

In what years do you foresee it being practical to design a good, solid ship in each of those categories? Knowing ahead of time would be nice, because I'm starting to get a bit antsy about how much we're talking about the need to design better ships, knowing our rivals are doing the same, and having us vote "do nothing" on the tactical role. I understand that it may not be wise for us to start a new role right this minute, but I'd at least like to see some numbers about when it probably WILL be wise to do so.

Literally every ship class we have, except the Oberth, is either brand new or has received a refit recently. I doubt we're going to get any more refits any time soon.

If we did that, we wouldn't be able to fill the requirements for several years, and the Council would get pissed at us for trying to design a ship that couldn't meet the requirements we set for it. Come to think of it, that's pretty much exactly what happened to Admiral Rogers...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We could potentially split a Sector Command Ship role off from the current Heavy Explorer role right now, and mark it as currently filled by the Excelsior. Thus when we do want to start building Heavy cruisers in about six to ten years, there is already a defined role for them to occupy.

There is potential risk here for the coucnil to ask why we need new heavy cruisers when we already have so many exclesiors, But I think that the Federation in a decade will be larger than our Exclesior fleet is capable of covering, even without futher losses.
It will be a matter of arguing that we don't have enough ships to fulfill the established role, and that the new cruisers will be cheaper to build and operate. Whislt providing the same capability.
If there is one thing civillian oversight likes, it is cost savings.
 
Last edited:
[X][ROLES] Do Nothing [2.0x Weighting on this vote]

[X][REPORT] A different possible War Scenario: Limited warfare with Harmony of Horizon attempting to reclaim to Tauni.

[X][WG] Preparedness Exercise - Tensions with a "Union" and their "Pact" subordinates have reached a boiling point. Frigates will patrol the frontiers in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa Sector, and locate, quantify, and track the computer-simulated incoming strikes. One UESPA Renaissance-class, one Seyek cruiser, and one Orion cruiser will act as Union/Pact hunter-killer forces in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa areas respectively in order to gain tracking and interception experience. Ships: 1 UESPA Centaur-A, 1 UESPA Renaissance, 1 TSF Centaur-A, 2 Indorian Patrol Escorts, 2 Seyek frigates, 1 Seyek cruiser, 2 Caitian Modern Swarmers, 1 Apiata Forager, 1 Oberth[T'Mir], 2 Orion frigates, 1 Orion cruiser. Cost: 9pp.
 
[X][ROLES] Update the Combat Escort requirements (+2 Militarisation)

[X][REPORT] Improving the Cardassian Readiness report

[X][WG] Preparedness Exercise - Tensions with a "Union" and their "Pact" subordinates have reached a boiling point. Frigates will patrol the frontiers in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa Sector, and locate, quantify, and track the computer-simulated incoming strikes. One UESPA Renaissance-class, one Seyek cruiser, and one Orion cruiser will act as Union/Pact hunter-killer forces in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa areas respectively in order to gain tracking and interception experience. Ships: 1 UESPA Centaur-A, 1 UESPA Renaissance, 1 TSF Centaur-A, 2 Indorian Patrol Escorts, 2 Seyek frigates, 1 Seyek cruiser, 2 Caitian Modern Swarmers, 1 Apiata Forager, 1 Oberth[T'Mir], 2 Orion frigates, 1 Orion cruiser. Cost: 9pp.

Thank you. finally Someone who agrees with me that we need to update the Combat Escort.
Adhoc vote count started by Thors_Alumni on Aug 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, finished with 1359 posts and 52 votes.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by Thors_Alumni on Aug 2, 2017 at 7:14 PM, finished with 1364 posts and 52 votes.
Click to expand...
 
chriswriter90 said:
Why are people voting Do Nothing?

I thought it was established that we had to update our "Combat Escort" requirements to match our prospective new Escort designs like the Flower?

It looks like there's a disconnect somewhere between discussion and votes...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exactly one person is pushing the Flower design, a design that I don't support and that hasn't gotten much traction in the SDB thread. I would be very disappointed if forced to update the Combat Frigate at this stage. Even if we were to build a new frigate intended for combat, I prefer to build a multi-role ship instead of updating the Combat Escort requirement.

What you're seeing as discussion on updated frigates has nothing to do with the Combat Escort tactical requirement.


Simon_Jester said:
What concerns me is that the Cardassians are going to have tactically significant numbers of refit cruisers hitting us within the next few years, and while SWB may be overestimating just how powerful they really are, they could well be strong enough to present major problems for the current generation of designs. Unless we start planning to counter them with frigates that have the kind of astounding durability I've seen from a lot of the recent design concepts, and with the intention of developing a next-generation cruiser competitive with the current Excelsior-A statline.

Otherwise we're going to end up going back to all our ship classes being outgunned by their Cardassian opposite numbers except the big heavy expensive explorers... and as Sousa once pointed out to Kahurangi, we're not going to be able to build one of our top-end explorers for every one of their cruisers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure my frigate designs are possible in the early stages of the design window, but I need the parts on the sheet. Push for that OOC instead of pushing for IC votes. It's useless to ask us to make a frigate now when there are parts we have unlocked today that haven't been statted yet.
 
[X][ROLES] Do Nothing [2.0x Weighting on this vote]

[X][REPORT] A different possible War Scenario: Limited warfare with Harmony of Horizon attempting to reclaim to Tauni.

[X][WG] Preparedness Exercise - Tensions with a "Union" and their "Pact" subordinates have reached a boiling point. Frigates will patrol the frontiers in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa Sector, and locate, quantify, and track the computer-simulated incoming strikes. One UESPA Renaissance-class, one Seyek cruiser, and one Orion cruiser will act as Union/Pact hunter-killer forces in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa areas respectively in order to gain tracking and interception experience. Ships: 1 UESPA Centaur-A, 1 UESPA Renaissance, 1 TSF Centaur-A, 2 Indorian Patrol Escorts, 2 Seyek frigates, 1 Seyek cruiser, 2 Caitian Modern Swarmers, 1 Apiata Forager, 1 Oberth[T'Mir], 2 Orion frigates, 1 Orion cruiser. Cost: 9pp.
 
I am not sure not sure if this vote actually makes sense, but the idea just came to me on the verge of falling asleep so I want to get it out quickly.

[X][REPORT] Tacticals recommendations for new shipyards and critical infrastructure locations after the new wave of members.

Should be an useful filler so we can wait with Harmony stuff until we invest a bunch of next years intel slots into them.
 
change on mind for me
[X][ROLES] Update the Combat Escort requirements (+2 Militarisation)

[X][REPORT] Improving the Cardassian Readiness report

[X][WG] Preparedness Exercise - Tensions with a "Union" and their "Pact" subordinates have reached a boiling point. Frigates will patrol the frontiers in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa Sector, and locate, quantify, and track the computer-simulated incoming strikes. One UESPA Renaissance-class, one Seyek cruiser, and one Orion cruiser will act as Union/Pact hunter-killer forces in the SBZ, CBZ, and Ferasa areas respectively in order to gain tracking and interception experience. Ships: 1 UESPA Centaur-A, 1 UESPA Renaissance, 1 TSF Centaur-A, 2 Indorian Patrol Escorts, 2 Seyek frigates, 1 Seyek cruiser, 2 Caitian Modern Swarmers, 1 Apiata Forager, 1 Oberth[T'Mir], 2 Orion frigates, 1 Orion cruiser. Cost: 9pp.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
I'm pretty sure my frigate designs are possible in the early stages of the design window, but I need the parts on the sheet. Push for that OOC instead of pushing for IC votes. It's useless to ask us to make a frigate now when there are parts we have unlocked today that haven't been statted yet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
@OneirosTheWriter , I think he has a point here. We can't possibly design new ships if we don't know what the parts that go into them do. Since we really need to design some new ships within the next few years of gameplay, or at least be able to speak precisely and clearly about what kind of ships we can build... Could you please do whatever the SDB crowd needs to be able to design ships?
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Exactly one person is pushing the Flower design, a design that I don't support and that hasn't gotten much traction in the SDB thread. I would be very disappointed if forced to update the Combat Frigate at this stage. Even if we were to build a new frigate intended for combat, I prefer to build a multi-role ship instead of updating the Combat Escort requirement.

What you're seeing as discussion on updated frigates has nothing to do with the Combat Escort tactical requirement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is the vote to formally say "Miranda-A's aren't cutting it anymore" not the vote to start the design process. That can wait a few years until you guys have the tech available to actually make a decent combat frigate.

[X][ROLES] Update the Combat Escort requirements (+2 Militarisation)

[X][REPORT] Improving the Cardassian Readiness report
 
Winged One said:
This is the vote to formally say "Miranda-A's aren't cutting it anymore" not the vote to start the design process. That can wait a few years until you guys have the tech available to actually make a decent combat frigate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you're going to decide the Miranda-A is no good, then please vote to eliminate the combat frigate role entirely. It would be more useful than voting for a combat frigate update. We should not be designing such a ship and the way these roles are done is completely ass-backwards anyway.
 
Even if you want a new combat escort, there is no need to update requirements this year. I support a 2319 new frigate design, but that means we do nothing this year, then act in 2318. We either do the sweeping requirements update in the 2318 Snakepit or update frigate requirements alone in the 2318 Tactical Review. Then we request a new ship project in 2319 Snakepit and begin work in 2319 Research turn.

This year, 2317, is exactly one year too early to update requirements.
 
@OneirosTheWriter, in addition to the sweeping update we're probably going to need to take this Snakepit, here are my proposals on how to fix the tactical operations turn:

1. Extend the deadline to fill a ship profile or role to ten years instead of five. Five years is too far inside our research envelope to properly guide ship design. With a five year deadline, we need to start from the ship design rather than from the ship intention. That gets things terribly backwards. With a ten year deadline, we can start from the research turn rather than from the ship design, and craft the available parts to role intention.
2. Eliminate all stat and cost requirements. We should be defining ships in terms of what roles we want them to play, not according to stat or costs. Deciding what stat or cost will fill that role should be determined after the designs have been done, not before. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the horse. All your ship designers understand what general stats are needed for a clearly written role, and costs is a matter of debate and willingness to pay.
3. Fill in stat and costs after the fact. These are still needed in order to obsolete or update roles and say "no, this statline isn't cutting it" or "no, this design is too expensive / too restrictive", but they should be used the opposite way they are now, in saying "these stats are what fills this role right now" rather than "this role is defined by this statline". Once a role is voted to be updated, the required stats should be cleared rather than increased until the update ship is designed.
 
It is extremely likely that the Combat Frigate and Garrison Frigate roles will need to be rolled into one unified role - possibly in this stage next game year. Whether that will cost Militirization or not, is up to @OneirosTheWriter.

The idea then being that a new design replaces both of the Miranda-A and Centaur-A designs, designed as a better combatant than either as well as having adequate S/P/D scores for garrison work.

As such, wait until next year's Tactical Operation post before pulling the trigger, at least.

Depending on how the role is statted out (that is purely Oneiros, isn't it?) the Centaur-A may no longer match it, the Miranda-A certainly will not. While we can still deploy ships that no longer match roles, I don't know if that will affect whether a refit option for these vessels will become an option in a decade or so - so pulling the roles out from under them may dead-end these designs altogether.
 
lbmaian said:
@OneirosTheWriter, can you post the detailed logistics loop breakdown including sm, blk, route penalty, hubs, etc?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I posted the one for Starfleet, it's in the spoiler after the summary.

SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
@OneirosTheWriter, in addition to the sweeping update we're probably going to need to take this Snakepit, here are my proposals on how to fix the tactical operations turn:

1. Extend the deadline to fill a ship profile or role to ten years instead of five. Five years is too far inside our research envelope to properly guide ship design. With a five year deadline, we need to start from the ship design rather than from the ship intention. That gets things terribly backwards. With a ten year deadline, we can start from the research turn rather than from the ship design, and craft the available parts to role intention.
2. Eliminate all stat and cost requirements. We should be defining ships in terms of what roles we want them to play, not according to stat or costs. Deciding what stat or cost will fill that role should be determined after the designs have been done, not before. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the horse. All your ship designers understand what general stats are needed for a clearly written role, and costs is a matter of debate and willingness to pay.
3. Fill in stat and costs after the fact. These are still needed in order to obsolete or update roles and say "no, this statline isn't cutting it" or "no, this design is too expensive / too restrictive", but they should be used the opposite way they are now, in saying "these stats are what fills this role right now" rather than "this role is defined by this statline". Once a role is voted to be updated, the required stats should be cleared rather than increased until the update ship is designed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay, I think I can work with these.

But the question, I think, is how you define obsolete ships without the stats requirements?
 
Last edited:
OneirosTheWriter said:
Okay, I think I can work with these.

But the question, I think, is how you define obsolete ships without the stats requirements?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fill them in with the ship that's currently in the role, and rely on the vote to point at what's obsolete. Then update the stats to equal the new ship (in the relevant areas) when the new ship goes into prototyping/production, which renders the old ship obsolete unless it is moved to a new role. The new ship's stats should be better than the old ship's stats. If they're not, then it's possible the old ship can continue to fill that role, and that there's some other reason like cost that we chose to build a new ship. This system lets us do things like push the Constellation-A into a reduced role or replace the Excelsior with a cheap cruiser while still keeping the existing hulls in service.
 
By the way, Horizon is a valid target for the war readiness report. You obviously won't get as much detail as the Cardassian one, and there will be some guesswork involved, but you'll be pointed to the most likely front lines, the potential danger areas, and a report on just how screwed the Laio and Tauni are if the ball goes up.

There is still plenty of space between you and the Harmony, though, so the recommendations might involve asking Rigel and UESPA to start pushing out the LBZ.

Theunderbolt said:
You know at times I forget that we're playing a game with the level of background work being done....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If I start randomly referring to posters by rank, stage an intervention. :V
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
I posted the one for Starfleet, it's in the spoiler after the summary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, I totally missed that. Thanks :oops:

I see Starfleet and UESPA logistics details now, although looks like the specific worlds that served as hubs, industry, sources, or whatever are omitted, or in the case of the trunk network, summarized as "Homeworld + 4 Major Worlds" or "External Trade - 4 Worlds".
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top