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][FYM] Captain Huth fop Makpol

This guy was the first captain of the Avandar, yo. (Though not the current one; I'm guessing there was a change in 2315, after spending a few years in the GBZ.)

I would prefer to have the border zone between Seyek space and Cardassian space up first before a HBZ. That might be next year or the one after depending on the timing of the Seyek accession.

Speaking of... anyone want to make guesses at which affiliates will join us this year?

I'm guessing Development is still going to go with 1 ratification only, probably Caldonia. Expansionists, if they're smart, would probably go for Caldonia + Seyek (since there's no way anyone else will support more than 2). They might be able to get the Hawks and Pacificsts on board if they play their cards right, since the Hawks wanted Seyek last year and the Pacifists wanted multiple accessions last year. If the Expansionists are able to get that vote block going, we might have dual ratifications this year.

On the other hand, Development might go for Seyek-only instead to get the Hawks on board with them, leading to another Development/Hawk vs Expansion/Pacifist split.
 
Last edited:
2318 Snakepit Plan
EOY 2317 – 458 pp. Subtract 55 during MWCO, add ~20pp for Q1 + ~20 for achieving Science Ambition = ~423

[NO VOTE][COUNCIL] 2318 Snakepit – A Little of Everything but without the Horizon Border Zone.
  • NEW Request a Sweeping Tactical Review, which will clear all roles and allow them to be redefined en mass, 50pp
  • Request Mining Colony at An Arai V, 8pp, 10 (15) sr/yr, 4 turns
  • Request Research Colony at Tolinar VII, 7pp, 5 srp/yr, 4 turns
  • Request development of Intazzi Shipyards, 14pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
  • Request development of Ana Font Shipyard, 14pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
  • Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 14pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
  • Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 14pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
  • Request Academy Development, 50pp* (Gain +.5 Officers/Enlisted/Techs throughput)
  • Request new Tech Team to be added to your Ship Design Bureau, 30pp [Propulsion and Warp Technology]
  • Request new Tech Team to be added to your Ship Design Bureau, 30pp [Foreign Analysis and Communications]

  • Request focused Diplomacy on a potential member species, 20pp (Licori)
  • Request focused Diplomacy on a potential member species, 20pp (Yrillians)

  • Reorganise a Starfleet Command from a Rear Admiral position to a Vice Admiral position. Pick one: 30pp for Personnel

  • Sponsor efforts to create additional Critical Ship Infrastructure on another world, 50pp (Apinae)

  • Acquire additional resources to establish a Horizon Desk for Starfleet Intel, 30pp (Gain +1 Dedicated Horizon intel report)

  • Starfleet Medical Command develop extensive medical facilities on Leas Akaam and Celos – 30pp

  • EITHER - Deploy Improved Listening Posts to a Border Zone to gain a 25% chance of generating +1 Intel report for powers on that border. (Licori Border Zone), 20pp
  • OR Acquire additional resources to establish an ISC Desk for Starfleet Intel, 30pp (Gain +1 Dedicated ISC intel report) if we get to 433 points
*Assuming Academy Development goes up in cost again.

I took out the Horizon Border Zone option and will put it into something more important. Like more Berths if its available. My only problem is that I forget where to find that information.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
Quote where Oneiros stated that a HBZ would be useful against subversive diplomacy?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Border zones have ALWAYS been for the purpose of keeping threats from that front there, nix. SBZ gets all the Sydraxian events, CBZ gets Cardassian events outside of major plot arcs, and so on and such forth.

No, the QM hasn't said that this particular one does that, but he doesn't need to. It's how they've worked from the word go.

There are valid force-deployment reasons to oppose the HBZ. But insisting it's a trap option because you're assuming that there will be no behind-the-scenes effects on event distribution like there have been every other time we declared a BZ is not one of them.
Nix said:
Yes, as I said none of our sectors have a satisfactory garrison force.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One ship sector and non-satisfactory garrison are no longer equivalent thanks to Mutual Support.
 
pheonix89 said:
Border zones have ALWAYS been for the purpose of keeping threats from that front there, nix. SBZ gets all the Sydraxian events, CBZ gets Cardassian events outside of major plot arcs, and so on and such forth.

No, the QM hasn't said that this particular one does that, but he doesn't need to. It's how they've worked from the word go.

There are valid force-deployment reasons to oppose the HBZ. But insisting it's a trap option because you're assuming that there will be no behind-the-scenes effects on event distribution like there have been every other time we declared a BZ is not one of them.

One ship sector and non-satisfactory garrison are no longer equivalent thanks to Mutual Support.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For both points: Look at what my actual arguments are in the posts I am making them instead of trying to guess them from a single sentence quote.
 
Last edited:
Briefvoice said:
Which ships would it take out of which sectors, and why are they needed there more urgently than putting them in the HBZ? Can you be specific?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh I don't know.:rolleyes: maybe the GBZ where the Konan are currently skirmishing with our fleets stationed there. and it caused us to start talking about sending reinforcements there if we haven't already.
 
Joshrand1982 said:
Oh I don't know.:rolleyes: maybe the GBZ where the Konan are currently skirmishing with our fleets stationed there. and it caused us to start talking about sending reinforcements there if we haven't already.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

On the fleet distribution plan we recently voted on, there was a "max reinforcements to the GBZ" plan. It was voted down because people preferred more ships in other sectors. So don't go tossing "we need more ships in the GBZ" as a reason not to establish a border zone. Especially when we're going to have 4 new Renaissances and 2 new Constellations to distribute by Q2 next year, meaning we'll easily be able to both expand a border zone and reinforce the GBZ.

Since Border Zones generally take a while to get going, if we vote to establish it in the 2318 Snakepit we'll likely have to garrison it around 2319.Q1, and the flood of new ships comes out immediately after that.

So again, what's this "we don't have the ships" stuff?
 
Nix said:
For both points: Look at what my actual argument is in the posts I am making it instead of trying to guess it from a single sentence quote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You still haven't explained WHY you think Oneiros is suddenly throwing trap options, other than to assume that somehow changing how we ORGANIZE response actions should magically cause a massive diplo shitstorm.

And your entire response argument just completely handwaves away mutual support. We do NOT need more than one ship in a sector to meet response needs if we've got multiple responders from Mutual Support on tap.
 
Briefvoice said:
On the fleet distribution plan we recently voted on, there was a "max reinforcements to the GBZ" plan. It was voted down because people preferred more ships in other sectors. So don't go tossing "we need more ships in the GBZ" as a reason not to establish a border zone. Especially when we're going to have 4 new Renaissances and 2 new Constellations to distribute by Q2 next year, meaning we'll easily be able to both expand a border zone and reinforce the GBZ.

Since Border Zones generally take a while to get going, if we vote to establish it in the 2318 Snakepit we'll likely have to garrison it around 2319.Q1, and the flood of new ships comes out immediately after that.

So again, what's this "we don't have the ships" stuff?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we have that many ships about to be commissioned than I will drop my point and move on.
 
Time for a tally
Adhoc vote count started by Thors_Alumni on Aug 11, 2017 at 2:47 PM, finished with 70 posts and 37 votes.
Click to expand...
 
pheonix89 said:
You still haven't explained WHY you think Oneiros is suddenly throwing trap options, other than to assume that somehow changing how we ORGANIZE response actions should magically cause a massive diplo shitstorm.

And your entire response argument just completely handwaves away mutual support. We do NOT need more than one ship in a sector to meet response needs if we've got multiple responders from Mutual Support on tap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It would be no more a trap option than allowing the diplomatic push on Bajor was, it would be a possible option with foreseeable and foreseen results. The fact that the majority of people didn't agree with the arguments against the Bajor push didn't make the other side being proven right unfair. It is extremely important for the game that we have the ability to make bad choices, otherwise our choices wouldn't matter. It needs to be possible to anticipate which choices will turn out bad for it to be fair, but it's not necessary for everyone to agree.

I explicitly said that having at least two ships in a sector fleet (mostly) isn't about event response. If mutual support doesn't make zero ship fleets ok it also doesn't make single ship fleets just fine, because those easily turn into zero ship fleets on short notice.
 
[X][FYM] Captain Jennifer Zhang

Agree with others that 4 years is too long to save a captain.

Briefvoice said:
On the fleet distribution plan we recently voted on, there was a "max reinforcements to the GBZ" plan. It was voted down because people preferred more ships in other sectors. So don't go tossing "we need more ships in the GBZ" as a reason not to establish a border zone. Especially when we're going to have 4 new Renaissances and 2 new Constellations to distribute by Q2 next year, meaning we'll easily be able to both expand a border zone and reinforce the GBZ.

Since Border Zones generally take a while to get going, if we vote to establish it in the 2318 Snakepit we'll likely have to garrison it around 2319.Q1, and the flood of new ships comes out immediately after that.

So again, what's this "we don't have the ships" stuff?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not the same thing? He could easily be taking the position(assuming he didn't vote for that GBZ reinforcements plan, which you appear to be assuming) that he liked how the voted-for plan distributed ships to our existing border zones and sectors, but that reinforcing the GBZ more heavily is more important than creating a new Border Zone and staffing it.
 
Briefvoice said:
On the fleet distribution plan we recently voted on, there was a "max reinforcements to the GBZ" plan. It was voted down because people preferred more ships in other sectors. So don't go tossing "we need more ships in the GBZ" as a reason not to establish a border zone. Especially when we're going to have 4 new Renaissances and 2 new Constellations to distribute by Q2 next year, meaning we'll easily be able to both expand a border zone and reinforce the GBZ.

Since Border Zones generally take a while to get going, if we vote to establish it in the 2318 Snakepit we'll likely have to garrison it around 2319.Q1, and the flood of new ships comes out immediately after that.

So again, what's this "we don't have the ships" stuff?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The deployment vote was before the Q4 GBZ report, so it's completely, utterly irrelevant for the question whether the GBZ needs reinforcements based on new information (IMO it does, badly).

The CBZ was requested in the 2306 snakepit and the deployment adjusted immediately afterwards. The LBZ was requested in the 2314 snakepit and deployment adjusted immediately afterwards. The SBZ was requested in the 2311 snakepit and came into effect 2311.Q4. So typically border zones come into effect immediately, occasionally they are delayed by 6 months, but not the 9 months you claimed. As you were wrong on a point of fact I assume this means you agree with delaying the request until 2319 when according to you we will have the necessary ships?
 
Nix said:
The deployment vote was before the Q4 GBZ report, so it's completely, utterly irrelevant for the question whether the GBZ needs reinforcements based on new information (IMO it does, badly).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know what you're talking about. We were informed that the Konen had reinforced the sector with one battleship, two cruisers, and five frigates back in the 2317.Q3 GBZ post, well before the fleet distribution vote.

We can confirm a Konen task force with a capital ship, two cruisers and five frigates has reinforced the Cardassian forces in the GBZ. This task force is starting to probe at our positions, and Commodore ka'Sharren's Task Force had to see off a pair of frigates attempting to raid the USS Pikri.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What new information do you think was in the Q4 report? The fact that they successfully destroyed a cargo ship after trying to do so already the previous quarter?

Note that we did reinforce the GBZ with one Excelsior-A and one Centaur-A in the winning vote. Now we've (hopefully) recruited Untied Earth to make up the two cruiser, four frigate difference.

The CBZ was requested in the 2306 snakepit and the deployment adjusted immediately afterwards. The LBZ was requested in the 2314 snakepit and deployment adjusted immediately afterwards. The SBZ was requested in the 2311 snakepit and came into effect 2311.Q4. So typically border zones come into effect immediately, occasionally they are delayed by 6 months, but not the 9 months you claimed. As you were wrong on a point of fact I assume this means you agree with delaying the request until 2319 when according to you we will have the necessary ships?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hah, hah, that's a joke, right? You didn't really assume I would change my mind?

As I said at the beginning, move the Excelsior-A and the Connie-B from Rigel to the new HBZ, and we'll be fine for a couple of quarters until we can reinforce (and IMO not much reinforcement will be necessary, since Rigel would be supported by both the HBZ and the LBZ).

But I think we can close the argument off for now. You can respond if you want to get the last word, but I'll try to restrain myself and not respond to that. I do know that I'm going to put the HBZ into my Snakepit plan, and I'm going to push as hard as I can to overrule you and win that vote.

SakSak said:
[X][FYM] Captain Jennifer Zhan

I fear that in 4 years, she'll have been promoted away.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I admit, I'm not really clear on why people like Zhang so much. Is there a recommended omake she particularly shined in?
 
Briefvoice said:
I don't know what you're talking about. We were informed that the Konen had reinforced the sector with one battleship, two cruisers, and five frigates back in the 2317.Q3 GBZ post, well before the fleet distribution vote.



What new information do you think was in the Q4 report? The fact that they successfully destroyed a cargo ship after trying to do so already the previous quarter?

Note that we did reinforce the GBZ with one Excelsior-A and one Centaur-A in the winning vote. Now we've (hopefully) recruited Untied Earth to make up the two cruiser, four frigate difference.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Q4 had T'Lorel stating that reinforcements would be required to resume offensive operations. That's new information, and much more significant to me than the fleet strength reports and what not. If our officers call for reinforcements that automatically makes giving them those one of the higher priorities for me.

Hah, hah, that's a joke, right? You didn't really assume I would change my mind?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't have if it was someone else, but you have been remarkably good about actually changing your mind based on arguments in this thread, with a few exceptions for choices that were your admitted personal preference. If you really thought that a HBZ would only come into effect 2319 then delaying until 2319 after being informed otherwise would only make sense.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top