I was thinking the ship, I hadn't even considered handing over the defectors. But in a comical way, what makes you think Linderley allowed anyone to know about what happened? The President sure. Certainly not each councilor. The Council would go "wait, you have a Cardassian ship? And Cardassian defectors?". Granted, need to know is appropriate, but still.
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)
- Thread starter OneirosTheWriter
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
-
- Tags
- star trek exploration fully automated luxury gay space communism top level canon (canon) #hashtagcontent all-encompassing space amoeba cardassian boy bands cardassian magical girls darkest bureaucracy debate makes the qm cackle like palpatine hoh is an empire quest it has to be foreign infiltrators more ships ship happens singers delenda est starfleet this is not an empire quest ur waifu is collective?
I suspect the Apiata might make like the Caitains and build one Explorer class ship using a Starfleet design to provide a bit more of an anchor to their fleet. If not an Excelsior, then maybe an Ambassador someday.
Starfleet goes pretty heavy on the big ships, but one or two are useful for the Member Fleets to have.
Starfleet goes pretty heavy on the big ships, but one or two are useful for the Member Fleets to have.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Well sure, I'm not in favor of Starfleet adopting non-Starfleet designs. After all, that would reduce the relevance of ship design mechanics. But that same brand and pride should also apply to our member nations that have their own prominent ship designing pedigrees. I've got to imagine that there are plenty of Amarkians who are disgruntled that they got pressured to building Centaur-As instead of their cruisers, even if there are practical reasons for doing so.
But I don't think it matters sufficiently to surface at the game level, or distinguish itself from any logistical impact that would have in the behind-the-scenes modeling Oneiros is doing with TBG economics. Supposing Starfleet starts building designs from a member world fleet on a large enough production scale, Starfleet will have to start working on the parts supply chain aspect to it, but that's not different from any new ship design it starts building. At best, there might be supply constraints that limit the initial production run, but after a year or so, those should evaporate.
That's my point.
Torgamous
Aspiring Gynoid
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Such as the added build time for prototypes?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
It would be a lovely retroactive burn if we could say to the Council "well, we told him to brief the Council, I thought that meant briefing you all..." or something like that, after the trouble he gave Kahurangi.
But that's just my vindictive streak talking, so never mind.
I don't think we exerted that much pressure. If they want to adopt a cruiser design of their own, they are welcome to use our technology to design one more in line with their needs (say, emphasizing combat stats). But if they can't build a cruiser that is noticeably superior to the Centaur-A, then they've got bigger problems.
The one time this actually came up, the associated logistical/economic costs were modeled as a pp cost for the "mass-produce Amarki cruisers" option. Some of that was no doubt purely due to political resistance, but I suspect that some real economic costs were also folded in there, the same way that all the various logistical costs of building a starbase are modeled as "spend 20pp."
Well, the point you actually made was that Apiata ships are superior for Apiata purposes. My point is that Apiata ships may well be inferior for Federation purposes, which is not quite the same thing, and which was originally a response to someone who (unlike you) suggested building Apiata ships in our yards.
That was my main point when I started talking, and when you started disagreeing with me. If you do not disagree with my point, then fine, I guess we're done here?
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Well that's a bit of a different situation. While it's reasonable that part of the prototype time is being spent ramping up the parts supply chain, much of that time is spent on ironing out problems with the prototype.
If this game was modeling the parts supply chain aspect instead of the just the more abstract global BR/SR pools, then I'd imagine there would be production limits to all ship designs. The more a ship is produced, the higher the production limits, and the time spent during prototyping serves to increase production limits as well. I just don't see the point of modelling to that level of detail. Ship build pipelining in our berths is complex enough as it is.
Their cruisers ARE noticeably superior to a Centaur-A - we are comparing a cruiser to an escort here. It's just that the Hebrinda is not superior to the Connie-B let alone the Rennie, so it would be a relative waste of resources to build Hebrindas rather than Centaur-As while they're saving up for the Renaissance (or refit Hebrinda or whatever).
It was definitely more of a "don't abandon Starfleet design ethos" thing rather than logistics:
Well, this is political talk, so who knows how much the logistics actually matter here, but let's take their statements at face value.
Actually I figure that pp is basically equating to getting all the resources and crew to construct and manage that starbase. Given how huge starbases are and probably cost several hundred worth of BR, that 20pp is incredibly cheap.
I've been advocating for a while to have the option to spend our BR and SR instead or in addition to PP to build starbases, but haven't got any traction on that.
Last edited:
Sometimes one must bow to the demands of game balance. I presume it's better for Oneiros's purposes if starbases have to come out of the political will resource bucket rather than the ship material bucket.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The Federation's total potential resources are large and Starfleet gets only a fraction of them under anything like normal conditions- we couldn't use them even if we had them.
Since starbases are civilian infrastructure as well as military (e.g. Deep Space Nine or Deep Space K-7 from the TOS era), the construction budget for such things has more to do with the political commitment to build them than anything else. When we pay for a starbase, we're convincing the Council to build a permanent space station that will be a defensive and economic boon to an entire sector (one that is likely represented by its own Council member(s). That is in many ways easier than convincing them to spend a similar amount of resources on a fighting starship.
I think Briefvoice is right about the game balance, and I think it's entirely logical for Starfleet's ability to build expensive infrastructure to be limited by what it can persuade the Council to agree to, rather than by the physical and economic resources budgeted to us in order to build ships. For that matter, our stockpiles of bulk and special resources are perhaps best seen as political 'vouchers' that enable us to draw on member world industry for whatever we need. Less like having a pile of titanium stockpiled in a warehouse, and more like having a pile of currency in a bank account. That helps explain how we can "go negative," even in theory.
Since starbases are civilian infrastructure as well as military (e.g. Deep Space Nine or Deep Space K-7 from the TOS era), the construction budget for such things has more to do with the political commitment to build them than anything else. When we pay for a starbase, we're convincing the Council to build a permanent space station that will be a defensive and economic boon to an entire sector (one that is likely represented by its own Council member(s). That is in many ways easier than convincing them to spend a similar amount of resources on a fighting starship.
I think Briefvoice is right about the game balance, and I think it's entirely logical for Starfleet's ability to build expensive infrastructure to be limited by what it can persuade the Council to agree to, rather than by the physical and economic resources budgeted to us in order to build ships. For that matter, our stockpiles of bulk and special resources are perhaps best seen as political 'vouchers' that enable us to draw on member world industry for whatever we need. Less like having a pile of titanium stockpiled in a warehouse, and more like having a pile of currency in a bank account. That helps explain how we can "go negative," even in theory.
To all those wanting to use probe-names from the early 2000s and 1990s, didn't Star Trek humanity have interstellar capable ships and manned missions to Saturn by that point? Would they even have had those probes?
It seems much m ore likely that a nuclear-powered rocket would have taken men to Mars in the late 70s or early 80s after the Mariner and Viking missions. Space RC cars might have played a role in exploration, but not a major one, not unless Eugenics War related budget cuts meant that NASA had to cut back it's manned martian exploration program and rely on robotic explorers.
It seems much m ore likely that a nuclear-powered rocket would have taken men to Mars in the late 70s or early 80s after the Mariner and Viking missions. Space RC cars might have played a role in exploration, but not a major one, not unless Eugenics War related budget cuts meant that NASA had to cut back it's manned martian exploration program and rely on robotic explorers.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Hm. Good point. Of course, there's nothing stopping similar names from being used- for instance, the nuclear spaceship that went to Jupiter in the movie 2001 was named Discovery, purely because it seemed like a good name for a spaceship going to Jupiter. If we hadn't named a shuttle that, we'd probably have considered using it for a Mars rover... but in Star Trek's timeline something like Opportunity might well be a name for an actual expedition ship.
No. sojourners resting place is noted as such in enterprise and has a memorial there, and the first manned missions to mars as per voyager weren't until the 2030s. I'm thinking more and more that ships like the SS Botany Bay were black box augment tech and not in wide use.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If the events of The Motion Picture are any indication, they had more space probes than real-life Earth. It also fits with the first-season weirdness around the Earth Space Probe Agency.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Voyager's canon contradicts TOS on the timeline for early solar system exploration, for the good and simple reason that the writers wanted to keep it plausible to their audience that Star Trek was their future, despite the fact that in TOS canon the point of departure between real life and Star Trek would have had to be some time in the 1970s or early '80s at the earliest.
Assuming we don't want to retcon the Augment Wars out of the timeline (and KHAAAAN is too fun to delete), then it really doesn't make sense for us to do the same.
For roleplay purposes I, for one, would be happier playing in a timeline where Earth was in a position to send an expedition to Saturn in the 1990s or the 2010s or whenever.
Assuming we don't want to retcon the Augment Wars out of the timeline (and KHAAAAN is too fun to delete), then it really doesn't make sense for us to do the same.
For roleplay purposes I, for one, would be happier playing in a timeline where Earth was in a position to send an expedition to Saturn in the 1990s or the 2010s or whenever.
Last edited:
To paraphrase Worm - Fucking Tinkers?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
To an extent, but it can't be just that, unless we retcon the original series out of respect for Voyager, which sounds very, VERY backwards.
I'd honestly rather just accept that Star Trek is a divergent timeline where space exploration proceeded at a significantly higher rate.
I'd honestly rather just accept that Star Trek is a divergent timeline where space exploration proceeded at a significantly higher rate.
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
Re: AIs in Star Trek
The other thing is that they're typically not designed in a way that makes them able to exterminate civilizations. They're large fixed computer installations with a distinct lack of "hands"; what external influence they have is circumscribed and usually monotask. The limitations of their physical forms are extreme.
The other thing is that they're typically not designed in a way that makes them able to exterminate civilizations. They're large fixed computer installations with a distinct lack of "hands"; what external influence they have is circumscribed and usually monotask. The limitations of their physical forms are extreme.
- Location
- Patriarchova
I say Trek diverges in the 70's/80's, with the creation of the first proto-augments. Their activities could have then caused us to develop space exploration more quickly.
- Location
- Location: Location!
The problem with fixing Cardassian ships is that we don't have the plans for it; we'd need to get a team to go through it and reverse-engineer most components in order to build replacement parts (which probably costs a team and rp). Yes, even the warp core; we can't just kitbash a Renaissance's warp core in there, the connectors are all in the wrong places, the hole is of the wrong size and there's no guarantee that the warp fields generated are compatible with Cardassian-style nacelles.
That's my assesment as well-space travel never got kicked under the buss by Nixon, von Braun got to go to Mars, a lot more Saturn Vs were built, and yeah, the Augments throw a wrench into things as well. Of course, this doesn't cross over strongly into the civilian sphere-San Francisco in 1987 looks fairly normal despite having a Cetacean Institute down in Monteray instead of just a plain Aquarium.
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
I'm assuming the ship computer core is fully intact, so full or partial schematics should be accessible. Kind of need those if something goes wrong, especially on an experimental ship like this. We probably could fix her up if we wanted to, it's just a question of whether it's worthwhile.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
TBG is already an AU with its smaller Federation and counterparts, so I don't see why we couldn't shift dates around as would make the most sense.
If you shift all the important early Star Trek dates (Eugenics Wars, First Contact, etc.) to say half a century later, then it could still all work out.
That's a good point. However, there are limits to that explanation, because you'd think the Federation would be very interested in building lots of trade and civilian ships. Civilian craft, whether ground/air/sea, in real life dwarf the military craft in numbers and total tonnage, and I normally would expect that to remain unchanged in the non-militarized Federation.
My thinking is that the primary limits on starship construction are the special resources required to build them - all the exotic components needed to build warp cores and warp drives and so forth that are compact enough to fit within the hull of a starship (unlike starbases which have ample room to instead use the less tonnage-efficient fusion reactors). That scarcity practically limits the total tonnage of starships, and thus would reduce total civilian starship tonnage to maybe less than an order of magnitude of that of total military starships.
But if special resources are the primary constraint of starship construction, that alone doesn't explain how the Federation can construct starbases that dwarf all the combined tonnage of starships, yet have such a relatively meager bulk resources budget for Starfleet and member fleets to build their starships. What's probably going on here is that the "bulk resources" is a bit of a misnomer - it actually means "bulk starship-grade resources". Starbases and more stationary space infrastructure likely don't need the super-dense and super-strong materials that starships require. Rather than solid duranium/tritanium constructions that starships have, starbases might just use the modern Trek equivalent of concrete with steel girders.
If you shift all the important early Star Trek dates (Eugenics Wars, First Contact, etc.) to say half a century later, then it could still all work out.
That's a good point. However, there are limits to that explanation, because you'd think the Federation would be very interested in building lots of trade and civilian ships. Civilian craft, whether ground/air/sea, in real life dwarf the military craft in numbers and total tonnage, and I normally would expect that to remain unchanged in the non-militarized Federation.
My thinking is that the primary limits on starship construction are the special resources required to build them - all the exotic components needed to build warp cores and warp drives and so forth that are compact enough to fit within the hull of a starship (unlike starbases which have ample room to instead use the less tonnage-efficient fusion reactors). That scarcity practically limits the total tonnage of starships, and thus would reduce total civilian starship tonnage to maybe less than an order of magnitude of that of total military starships.
But if special resources are the primary constraint of starship construction, that alone doesn't explain how the Federation can construct starbases that dwarf all the combined tonnage of starships, yet have such a relatively meager bulk resources budget for Starfleet and member fleets to build their starships. What's probably going on here is that the "bulk resources" is a bit of a misnomer - it actually means "bulk starship-grade resources". Starbases and more stationary space infrastructure likely don't need the super-dense and super-strong materials that starships require. Rather than solid duranium/tritanium constructions that starships have, starbases might just use the modern Trek equivalent of concrete with steel girders.
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
My theory is similar. Bulk resources are rarer metals. Stuff like iron doesn't even fall into BR. SR is exotic bullshit treknomaterials and maybe rare earths.
Edit: So starbases use much much less of the stuff because they don't need some components and the PP expenditure covers the rest.
Edit: So starbases use much much less of the stuff because they don't need some components and the PP expenditure covers the rest.
That or Science Related Memetic Disorder.
I grew up with voyager and TNG so I'm pretty okay with retconning certain elements of TOS actually.
In terms of Saturn Guy it's easier to imagine he was born a couple decades later OR that he was actually 60's Jet Guys grandson instead of son.
TOS suffers the same problem as 2001 where they assumed more manned missions were required than IRL.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
It wouldn't be easy but it would probably be cheaper than a new ship, if not necessarily faster.
The sort of thing we'd consider, if we had a berth of the right size that wasn't doing much... which, frankly, we don't, unless one of our allies has a two-megaton berth I don't know about.
San Francisco in 1987 would look pretty much the same, unless mass distribution of personal electronics hit the markets and everyone was using smartphones twenty years ahead of schedule. It's not hard to picture a timeline that massively butterflies the space program without butterflying that. Especially since there are industrial reasons why computers didn't improve faster- the big one being that you have to use each generation of "etch really tiny integrated circuits onto computer chips" to manufacture the NEXT generation, and the process takes time, with little or no room for rapid leapfrogging.
Thanks, but I prefer not to unless there is some strong, compelling reason to do so.
Numbers, yes. Total tonnage? Maybe not. Most star systems seem likely to be self-sufficient in the raw materials needed to survive and build an industrial base. There are so many mineral-rich planets and habitable planets in Star Trek that there's not much reason to settle a world that isn't habitable. Therefore, there is going to be little or no 'natural' trade in bulk materials between star systems. You can find stuff like iron and aluminum ore and oil (if you still need oil) anywhere you go. Likewise, realistically, for foodstuffs, unless you deliberately turn one of your core worlds into a stupidly overpopulated ecumenopolis, or somehow manage to destroy all your farming capability while having huge farming capability ready to go on another planet.
Similarly, there's not much reason for consumer goods to be manufactured anywhere but in the star system where they're going to be consumed, unless there aren't enough people IN that star system to support a market for the goods.
So the main purpose of interstellar cargo ships will be to trade in items so rare or produced in such small quantity that nobody in your whole solar system bothers to produce them... Or items that are 'exotic' for cultural reasons. Or ships that cater to the commerce of tiny colony worlds that cannot support a fully developed industrial base.
None of those provide much of an incentive to build freighters bigger than an Excelsior, or even a Connie.
Okay, now this part I buy. It's totally plausible that starbases just swap out one ton of tritanium or whatever for ten or even fifty tons of locally manufactured steel.
I honestly like being able to displace my mind, for role-playing purposes, into a world where the people of Earth collectively embraced the importance of space exploration, and did so early, actively, and without forcing. It is one of the things I actually enjoy about Star Trek quests.
I tend to resist efforts to take that away from me.