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
[X][EC] Rachel Ainsworth

[X][ACA] Michel Thuir

[X][GBZ] Rear Admiral T'Lorel

[X][GBZ1] Commodore Rosalee McAdams

[X][ACADEMY] Custom - Shift 1pt from Techs to Enlisted

[X][EXPLORER] Custom - Shift .25 from Techs to Enlisted

Not sure on GBZ, need to know if such stupidly short cycles are normal.

Ainsworth stays at EC for that bonkers ability.

Thuir gets Academy command because he's the supreme god of not doing stupid shit and I want that to rub off.
 
Last edited:
I don't think T'Lorel has the level of seniority I'd expect or want from a Vulcan candidate for a Vice Admiral-ranked Explorer Corps CO slot.

She's only been a rear admiral since, oh, the end of the anti-Syndicate campaign, so far as I can remember. Ainsworth is at least as eligible for promotion and has about as good a service record, plus she hasn't been in her current position for long at all (about two years, same as T'Lorel).
 
Simon_Jester said:
[Incidentally, Oneiros, do you intend for two-year terms in the Gabriel Expanse to be 'normal?' That is a much shorter time to hold the billet than is common in Starfleet so far, and realistically it could cause problems due to discontinuity of leadership.]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

About two years, yes. Given you only have the one active combat zone, it seems mad (especially with your current Personnel director) to allow the whole burden to fall on one officer. It also allows you to share battle command experience among flag officers.
 
IIRC we've already crewed the last EC Excelsior so all future EC ships will be Ambassadors.

The Ambassador requires O-7, E-7, T-6 which gives a 1:1:0.857 ratio. Current EC income is O-4 E-3.45 T-3.20 which has a ratio of 1:0.863:0.8 so it needs some adjusting. With our current pool of 10.65 EC crew the optimal ratio would be:
3.73 Officers + 3.73 Enlisted + 3.19 Techs​

This requires a shift of 0.27 from O and 0.01 from T to E. That is outside our capabilities but we can get pretty close with a shift of 0.25O to E.
 
Last edited:
So here are my billet votes/thoughts/analysis:

[X][EC] Rear Admiral T'Lorel

Rachel has done a fine job, but.... do you see her as an eventual Commander of Starfleet? Because that is what you are picking when you appoint a Vice Admiral. I say it's time for T'Lorel to step up to the big plate as a Vice Admiral. Her endless patience and diplomacy will be of great asset in dealing with the fractious captains of our Explorer Corps. And I can see her as eventual Commander of Starfleet!

[X][GBZ] Rear Admiral Michel Thuir

Thuir is a great all-rounder well suited for this hazardous command. I know we've talked for a long time about putting him in charge of the Academy, but that's not a post you move on from easily. I'd like to keep him in the stir.

[X][GBZ1] Commodore Rosalee McAdams

Rosalee McAdams has been out of field work since 2315 when she was promoted to Commodore. This is a good chance for her to stretch her legs in a space command doing some good work as one of our important space commands.

[X][ACA] Rear Admiral Revak

Speaking of sidelining someone who will never be Commander of Starfleet into a comfortable retirement post.... I think Revak will do a fine job running the Aacademy, don't you? Teach everyone how to develop personal deflector shields.

[X][ACADEMY] Custom - Shift 1pt from Techs to Enlisted

[X][EXPLORER] Custom - Shift .25 from Techs to Enlisted
 
Last edited:
@Hazard, I honestly don't think that's necessary; Oneiros has been keeping adequate track of that.

OneirosTheWriter said:
About two years, yes. Given you only have the one active combat zone, it seems mad (especially with your current Personnel director) to allow the whole burden to fall on one officer. It also allows you to share battle command experience among flag officers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Night said:
But the lack of continuity of command inhibits long-term plans, too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This.

We rely on our local commander in the Gabriel Expanse to adopt a strategic posture, and we don't jostle their elbow. The flip side of that is that we're depending on their personality to inform us about what strategy they'll take. Changing personalities means changing strategies. A lot.

The number of commanding officers we have with well-developed personalities is not so high that we can't run out of them if we try to grind through them all once per two years.

...

Also, we only have one active combat zone right now, but we've had two others flare up or die out (or both) in the time since the Gabriel Expanse became a free-fire zone. If events had unfolded differently, there could easily be another one if we wound up at war with the Hishmeri. A brushfire war could break out with the Harmony at any time.

...

Plus, here we have T'Lorel basically saying "I hesitate to do anything significant in response to the Konen raids, because I don't want to commit my successor to a policy." And if we replace her with someone from outside the Expanse (as T'Lorel herself was a replacement from outside the Expanse), the new person would then probably have to spend a few months getting up to speed before they could implement much of a strategy of their own. So if this becomes a pattern, we basically have a period of about six months every two years where our forces in the Gabriel Expanse are partially paralyzed. They risk being unable to do more than react in obvious ways to the most obvious enemy attacks, due to a change of command structure.

I strongly disagree with Personnel's analysis, and if I'd known that our new Personnel director was going to become a major enthusiast for rapid turnover of management, I might not have voted for them. Rapid management turnover is generally a bad thing in real life.
 
Briefvoice said:
So here are my billet votes/thoughts/analysis:

[X][EC] Rear Admiral T'Lorel

Rachel has done a fine job, but.... do you see her as an eventual Commander of Starfleet? Because that is what you are picking when you appoint a Vice Admiral. I say it's time for T'Lorel to step up to the big plate as a Vice Admiral. Her endless patience and diplomacy will be of great asset in dealing with the fractious captains of our Explorer Corps. And I can see her as eventual Commander of Starfleet!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except that we will be opening up some vice admiral positions as we change departments like the SDB to full admiral. And Ainsworth has done an amazing job at EC, her reroll ability has saved us every year since she has been there and I like the idea of a non EC officer running it to keep an outside perspective. And not all vice admirals need to be in line, Linderly is a vice admiral but is no way a candidate for command of Starfleet.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I strongly disagree with Personnel's analysis, and if I'd known that our new Personnel director was going to become a major enthusiast for rapid turnover of management, I might not have voted for them. Rapid management turnover is generally a bad thing in real life.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I agree with Personnel's analysis and I support turning over GBZ command every two years. Two years is plenty of a time horizon for strategy, given that we don't expect there to be massive disagreements.
 
Looks like we'll need to engineer a replacement of our personnel director.

I am seriously tempted to vote T'Lorel for GBZ as a protest vote. Screw it, actually doing that.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I strongly disagree with Personnel's analysis, and if I'd known that our new Personnel director was going to become a major enthusiast for rapid turnover of management, I might not have voted for them. Rapid management turnover is generally a bad thing in real life.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Gabriel is a war zone, with casualties being taken, so it isn't so much an enthusiasm for rapid management turnover so much as it is a psychological management strategy. I mean, Rear Admiral zh'Shennaryth clearly has a focus on not burning personnel out by combat fatiguing them.
 
Briefvoice said:
So here are my billet votes/thoughts/analysis:

[][EC] Rear Admiral T'Lorel

Rachel has done a fine job, but.... do you see her as an eventual Commander of Starfleet? Because that is what you are picking when you appoint a Vice Admiral.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, it's not. There are, what, eight or nine vice admiral billets in Starfleet now, and only one CO of Starfleet. There is ample room for us to appoint senior officers to vice admiral rank who might not be suited for the top billet. And I for one am in fact considering Ainsworth for at least one more promotion- to head of Starfleet Tactical, a position I expect her to excel in.

I say it's time for T'Lorel to step up to the big plate as a Vice Admiral. Her endless patience and diplomacy will be of great asset in dealing with the fractious captains of our Explorer Corps. And I can see her as eventual Commander of Starfleet!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So far, we've done quite well with having a succession of bold, adventurous officers in charge of the Explorer Corps- Chen, Sulu, and Ainsworth all come to mind. Exceptional patience and diplomacy don't seem to be critical job requirements.

While T'Lorel is certainly suitable for the job, and an officer of the highest caliber, I for one would like to let her accrue more staff experience and seniority in grade before promoting her to vice admiral. She hasn't been a rear admiral for that long.

[][GBZ] Rear Admiral Michel Thuir

Thuir is a great all-rounder well suited for this hazardous command. I know we've talked for a long time about putting him in charge of the Academy, but that's not a post you move on from easily. I'd like to keep him in the stir.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, my ongoing concern about Thuir as an officer likely to enrage the Sydraxians is largely neutralized now that we have a solid rapport with them and ongoing diplomatic contact. We could do a lot worse. And Thuir has demonstrated admirable command qualities at Ixaria.

We could do a hell of a lot worse.

[][GBZ1] Commodore Rosalee McAdams

Rosalee McAdams has been out of field work since 2315 when she was promoted to Commodore. This is a good chance for her to stretch her legs in a space command doing some good work as one of our important space commands.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
McAdams is definitely a suitable choice for Task Force One.

[][ACA] Rear Admiral Revak

Speaking of sidelining someone who will never be Commander of Starfleet into a comfortable retirement post.... I think Revak will do a fine job running the Aacademy, don't you? Teach everyone how to develop personal deflector shields.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't want to pick the head of the Academy purely as a sinecure. It's an important job, and it's one of the few positions in Starfleet that can impact our crew availability and readiness. It's not just a place for us to shovel dirt over an officer we don't care for and forget about him.

Briefvoice said:
I agree with Personnel's analysis and I support turning over GBZ command every two years. Two years is plenty of a time horizon for strategy, given that we don't expect there to be massive disagreements.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Suffice to say that I've worked in environments with that kind of management churn, and have not enjoyed the experience.

If there were some reliable principle in place that we were only going to promote commanders of the Gabriel Expanse fleet from within the Expanse command structure, I wouldn't mind so much. That would ensure that the officers on the spot have local experience and are familiar with local conditions before they take command, at least. But rapid turnover opens us up to "order, counterorder, disorder" at a fairly high level.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I don't want to pick the head of the Academy purely as a sinecure. It's an important job, and it's one of the few positions in Starfleet that can impact our crew availability and readiness. It's not just a place for us to shovel dirt over an officer we don't care for and forget about him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay, but I was being a little mean. Revak is a fine officer whose greatest talent is that he works well with people and understands Starfleet in his very bones. He was on the EC Panel of Captains, he's had important space commands, he's seen combat and knows what it's like to command battles, and I really do think he's suited to bringing up the next generation of officers. On qualifications he's plenty suited to become Academy Commandant.

It's just fun to pretend I don't like him.

Suffice to say that I've worked in environments with that kind of management churn, and have not enjoyed the experience.

If there were some reliable principle in place that we were only going to promote commanders of the Gabriel Expanse fleet from within the Expanse command structure, I wouldn't mind so much. That would ensure that the officers on the spot have local experience and are familiar with local conditions before they take command, at least. But rapid turnover opens us up to "order, counterorder, disorder" at a fairly high level.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Don't forget that there's a Theater Command level above the GBZ commander that sets grand strategy. The GBZ commander is still as much about tactics and short term decisions as anything. You may be thinking of them as more independent than they are. On a long planning timeline, the GBZ commander answers to John Harriman.
 
Do we have to reassign people or can we just leave most of them where they are?

I basically agree with Simon_Jester, two years is too short. New commanders have to get to know the situation and the people they are working with. which takes time. In RL, the military wouldn't reassign a successful general/admiral after just two years either, or would they?
 
[X][EC] Rachel Ainsworth
[X][GBZ1] Rosalee McAdams
[X][ACA] Michel Thuir

I'm seriously considering Thuir as Gabriel Expanse commander, partly in an attempt to make it up to him for all the problems his career's had because "no bringing him close to the Sydraxians!" However, I've been wanting this guy for the Academy since I joined the game, and I know for a fact people have wanted him as a redshirt-trainer ever since the Biophage.

It is far from the only thing he could do well. But it is his first, best destiny. Besides, I want him in that slot when Picard comes to the Academy in 2322 or '23.

I'm still holding off on the GBZ vote.

OneirosTheWriter said:
The Gabriel is a war zone, with casualties being taken, so it isn't so much an enthusiasm for rapid management turnover so much as it is a psychological management strategy. I mean, Rear Admiral zh'Shennaryth clearly has a focus on not burning personnel out by combat fatiguing them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a GREAT idea for the personnel directly involved in combat. As the guy who wrote the agonies of one of the most badly chewed-up crews ever to get mauled in a battle in the Expanse, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Pulling, for example, Captain Chekov and assigning him to a staff position in the Explorer Corps was a very good move.

Applying the same logic to a sector commander who normally commands her fleet from a planetside desk and delegates running the battles to her task force commanders is rather questionable.

Now, if T'Lorel actually is showing signs of combat fatigue, she should certainly be replaced. But if so, it probably isn't the fault of something uniquely difficult about the Gabriel Expanse. T'Lorel has been in stressful combat positions for most of the time since 2311 or so, when she was appointed head of our anti-Syndicate ground forces. Which was almost certainly a more stressful posting than "CO Gabriel Expanse."

Briefvoice said:
Don't forget that there's a Theater Command level above the GBZ commander that sets grand strategy. The GBZ commander is still as much about tactics and short term decisions as anything. You may be thinking of them as more independent than they are. On a long planning timeline, the GBZ commander answers to John Harriman.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Have we seen any sign of Harriman making operational decisions that directly impact Gabriel Expanse operations? It seems like a fairly independent command even if there is a link or two in the chain between them and the head of Starfleet.
 
[X][EC] Rachel Ainsworth
[X][GBZ1] Rosalee McAdams
[X][ACA] Michel Thuir
 
Gingganz said:
I basically agree with Simon_Jester, two years is too short. New commanders have to get to know the situation and the people they are working with. which takes time. In RL, the military wouldn't reassign a successful general/admiral after just two years either, or would they?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Three years is standard in the United States Navy.

The standard tour length for most rear admiral positions is three years, but some are set at four or more years by statute. For the Navy, Coast Guards and NOAA Corps, both grades of rear admiral are permanent ranks and do not expire when the officer vacates a one-star or two-star position. The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, however employs permanent promotions in both grades of rear admiral as well as position-linked temporary appointments in both grades.[25] Their temporary ranks expires when those officers vacate certain temporary positions of office designated to bear those ranks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Two years is a little light, but it is a high stress position in an active combat zone... I can definitely see getting them out faster.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top