The Space in F-1 seems kind of empty. we should put an outpost there.
 
Last edited:
You mean f-1?

[And yes, capitalization matters, because we use it to denote whether a sector is in the Alpha or Beta Quadrant. This lets us add columns to BOTH sides of the map if we need to, without having to go "uh hey, what's the letter in the alphabet that comes before A?"]

Well yes, that's sort of the entire point of the Gabrial Expanse 'Border Zone' everyone's been talking about. Starfleet, as a way of assuring the Apiata that we intend to protect them from Cardassian/Sydraxian provocations, is going to be pushing out in that direction over the next few years.
 
You mean f-1?

[And yes, capitalization matters, because we use it to denote whether a sector is in the Alpha or Beta Quadrant. This lets us add columns to BOTH sides of the map if we need to, without having to go "uh hey, what's the letter in the alphabet that comes before A?"]

Well yes, that's sort of the entire point of the Gabrial Expanse 'Border Zone' everyone's been talking about. Starfleet, as a way of assuring the Apiata that we intend to protect them from Cardassian/Sydraxian provocations, is going to be pushing out in that direction over the next few years.
Sorry. I didn't know that. Yes I do mean f-1. that space looks empty and it needs to have something in it. preferably a station. Unless there is something there that isn't on the map. Next turn I am going to suggest that we focus on the Cardassian border. and build some listening posts along the border.
 
Oh, that's clever! I assumed that was either being handwaved for simplicity's sake or just not shown on the map.

Probably wouldn't hurt. (j,-2) is looking pretty cluttered though, we should clear some of that out.
Subtle. I like you.

Sorry. I didn't know that. Yes I do mean f-1. that space looks empty and it needs to have something in it. preferably a station. Unless there is something there that isn't on the map. Next turn I am going to suggest that we focus on the Cardassian border. and build some listening posts along the border.
It's an old map, we're already expanding in that direction. If we have the political will to pay for it, outposts and such in that direction seem likely. The problem is that doing this costs political will we can also spend (arguably need to spend) on other projects, like starting new ship projects, expanding our crew recruitment, building shipyards, and so on.

The Cardassian border region is mainly secured by our integration with the Indorions and the Apiata, who have already densely settled the area 'forward' and close to the border. A few more outposts in that region wouldn't go amiss, but we don't urgently need them.
 
Sorry. I didn't know that. Yes I do mean f-1. that space looks empty and it needs to have something in it. preferably a station. Unless there is something there that isn't on the map. Next turn I am going to suggest that we focus on the Cardassian border. and build some listening posts along the border.
It's close enough to the existing systems and the CBZ fleet exists.
 
It's close enough to the existing systems and the CBZ fleet exists.
I think central/spinwards (f,-1) is a reasonable place to put an outpost - it wouldn't hurt for the CBZ fleet to have one to base out of, the distance is comparable to the (f,-2) outpost, and we're only going to push further and further away from Apinae. Though ideally we'd want to find a colony or something to place it next to. I'm not sure we'll need listening outposts with a heavy fleet presence though - my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the areas we've placed them in are to listen to areas we aren't actively patrolling, which wouldn't be the case here.
 
Last edited:
I want the space-bears as friends!
Truly a mission worthy of Chekov.
"It is little known fact that space bears were first theorized by Russian science fiction authors!"

Moving on...
A thought relating to the coupling effects that we're using to explain Starfleet design philosophies re: nacelle placement.
This could tie back to why the four nacelle designs are so speedy, but have bad endurance.
The Contellations couple in at least two directions. L-R and U-D.
So, great efficiencies!
But, they couple in two directions. So many additional stresses and you need to deguase your warp coils, or, something like that anyway.
 
Truly a mission worthy of Chekov.
"It is little known fact that space bears were first theorized by Russian science fiction authors!"

Moving on...
A thought relating to the coupling effects that we're using to explain Starfleet design philosophies re: nacelle placement.
This could tie back to why the four nacelle designs are so speedy, but have bad endurance.
The Contellations couple in at least two directions. L-R and U-D.
So, great efficiencies!
But, they couple in two directions. So many additional stresses and you need to deguase your warp coils, or, something like that anyway.
Or, they just burn through fuel.

4 Nacelles can compensate for not having larger ones, but larger is more efficient.
 
So a disheartening update on our Syndicate cost situation:

Last year, we accrued 53 cost, and we ended up with a total of 55 cost at EOY, resulting in keeping only 34pp from our 2311 EOY annual income of 75pp.

Assuming I tallied everything correctly, we've accrued 88 cost so far this year. We currently have an annual income of 83pp or 87pp, depending on whether we still retain Revak's +4pp/yr bonus after the sector command system change from bonuses to attributes. I'll be pessimistic and assume it's 83pp. I'll also assume the new +15 resilience takes effect this EOY.

So assuming that there won't be any more events that increase costs this quarter (hah!), and the uncertainty in how Syndicate cost is "halved" at EOY, here's what our EOY post-resilience cost is going to look like :
  • If Syndicate cost from 2+ years ago is zeroed out and last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 84 cost => only 13pp annual income
  • If total Syndicate cost from last EOY is halved at this EOY: 90 cost => only 8pp annual income
  • If only last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 96 cost => only 3pp annual income
Fortunately we currently have 73pp pre-income, 65pp of which came from post-snakepit events. But even if we assume the remainder of this quarter or the next quarter will have above average pp bonuses, next snakepit is probably not going to be pretty.

There's also the chance that additional cost this quarter will bring us past 100 cost (-100% annual pp income), and there could be additional political consequences from that for all we know.
 
Last edited:
So a disheartening update on our Syndicate cost situation:

Last year, we accrued 53 cost, and we ended up with a total of 55 cost at EOY, resulting in keeping only 34pp from our 2311 EOY annual income of 75pp.

Assuming I tallied everything correctly, we've accrued 88 cost so far this year. We currently have an annual income of 83pp or 87pp, depending on whether we still retain Revak's +4pp/yr bonus after the sector command system change from bonuses to attributes. I'll be pessimistic and assume it's 83pp. I'll also assume the new +15 resilience takes effect this EOY.

So assuming that there won't be any more events that increase costs this quarter (hah!), and the uncertainty in how Syndicate cost is "halved" at EOY, here's what our EOY post-resilience cost is going to look like :
  • If Syndicate cost from 2+ years ago is zeroed out and last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 84 cost => only 13pp annual income
  • If total Syndicate cost from last EOY is halved at this EOY: 90 cost => only 8pp annual income
  • If only last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 96 cost => only 3pp annual income
Fortunately we currently have 73pp pre-income, 65pp of which came from post-snakepit events. But even if we assume the remainder of this quarter or the next quarter will have above average pp bonuses, next snakepit is probably not going to be pretty.

There's also the chance that additional cost this quarter will bring us past 100 cost (-100% annual pp income), and there could be additional political consequences from that for all we know.
That is going to be rough, and I think it will be the middle one, that makes it easier to track and manage, and means next year we will be starting 20 points higher... I can only hope cost goes down thanks to them having lost two actions as well as using the plan they spent a long time on.
 
So a disheartening update on our Syndicate cost situation:

Last year, we accrued 53 cost, and we ended up with a total of 55 cost at EOY, resulting in keeping only 34pp from our 2311 EOY annual income of 75pp.

Assuming I tallied everything correctly, we've accrued 88 cost so far this year. We currently have an annual income of 83pp or 87pp, depending on whether we still retain Revak's +4pp/yr bonus after the sector command system change from bonuses to attributes. I'll be pessimistic and assume it's 83pp. I'll also assume the new +15 resilience takes effect this EOY.

So assuming that there won't be any more events that increase costs this quarter (hah!), and the uncertainty in how Syndicate cost is "halved" at EOY, here's what our EOY post-resilience cost is going to look like :
  • If Syndicate cost from 2+ years ago is zeroed out and last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 84 cost => only 13pp annual income
  • If total Syndicate cost from last EOY is halved at this EOY: 90 cost => only 8pp annual income
  • If only last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 96 cost => only 3pp annual income
Fortunately we currently have 73pp pre-income, 65pp of which came from post-snakepit events. But even if we assume the remainder of this quarter or the next quarter will have above average pp bonuses, next snakepit is probably not going to be pretty.

There's also the chance that additional cost this quarter will bring us past 100 cost (-100% annual pp income), and there could be additional political consequences from that for all we know.

In other words we need to tighten our belts for the rest of the year and hope we don't go over 100 PP cost.
 
So a disheartening update on our Syndicate cost situation:

Last year, we accrued 53 cost, and we ended up with a total of 55 cost at EOY, resulting in keeping only 34pp from our 2311 EOY annual income of 75pp.

Assuming I tallied everything correctly, we've accrued 88 cost so far this year. We currently have an annual income of 83pp or 87pp, depending on whether we still retain Revak's +4pp/yr bonus after the sector command system change from bonuses to attributes. I'll be pessimistic and assume it's 83pp. I'll also assume the new +15 resilience takes effect this EOY.

So assuming that there won't be any more events that increase costs this quarter (hah!), and the uncertainty in how Syndicate cost is "halved" at EOY, here's what our EOY post-resilience cost is going to look like :
  • If Syndicate cost from 2+ years ago is zeroed out and last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 84 cost => only 13pp annual income
  • If total Syndicate cost from last EOY is halved at this EOY: 90 cost => only 8pp annual income
  • If only last year's accrued Syndicate cost (after subtracting out our resilience) is halved at EOY: 96 cost => only 3pp annual income
Fortunately we currently have 73pp pre-income, 65pp of which came from post-snakepit events. But even if we assume the remainder of this quarter or the next quarter will have above average pp bonuses, next snakepit is probably not going to be pretty.

There's also the chance that additional cost this quarter will bring us past 100 cost (-100% annual pp income), and there could be additional political consequences from that for all we know.
That is going to be rough, and I think it will be the middle one, that makes it easier to track and manage, and means next year we will be starting 20 points higher... I can only hope cost goes down thanks to them having lost two actions as well as using the plan they spent a long time on.
Hopefully the increased activity of other factions (the Andarians, etc.) might mean that the Cost gets shared in the future? I suppose it's possible everyone involved gets blamed the maximum amount, but it hardly seems fair for Starfleet to shoulder all of the blame.

But hey, if we're unlucky, we might be at war and get to do everything via State Of Emergency anyway!

In other words we need to tighten our belts for the rest of the year and hope we don't go over 100 PP cost.
Yeah. On the other hand, we might be able to get some of the most important stuff done via backroom deals - making future promises we can fulfil when our pp isn't so hugely restrained by Cost.
 
Last edited:
Truly a mission worthy of Chekov.
"It is little known fact that space bears were first theorized by Russian science fiction authors!"

Moving on...
A thought relating to the coupling effects that we're using to explain Starfleet design philosophies re: nacelle placement.
This could tie back to why the four nacelle designs are so speedy, but have bad endurance.
The Contellations couple in at least two directions. L-R and U-D.
So, great efficiencies!
But, they couple in two directions. So many additional stresses and you need to deguase your warp coils, or, something like that anyway.
Consties also keep their nacelles grouped tight. Maybe if they were space out a bit more it'd work better?
 
Hopefully the increased activity of other factions (the Andarians, etc.) might mean that the Cost gets shared in the future? I suppose it's possible everyone involved gets blamed the maximum amount, but it hardly seems fair for Starfleet to shoulder all of the blame.

But hey, if we're unlucky, we might be at war and get to do everything via State Of Emergency anyway!


Yeah. On the other hand, we might be able to get some of the most important stuff done via backroom deals - making future promises we can fulfil when our pp isn't so hugely restrained by Cost.
As long as its all above board and legal I am game.
 
It occurred to me that war with Cardassia kicks off not only that war, but may also signal the war between the Romulans and Klingons to begin (with all the deaths that will cause). That's a pretty heavy moral responsibility! I'm sure the Pacifist faction has heard that theory as well, and the knowledge that war here means war in the Beta quadrant may also be influencing their actions.

Though if this Syndicate business seems to be occupying the Federation enough, the empires may decide 'good enough'.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. On the other hand, we might be able to get some of the most important stuff done via backroom deals - making future promises we can fulfil when our pp isn't so hugely restrained by Cost.

This is why it's a good thing that we're playing Sousa-Sousa can get stuff done without having to expend pp, by agreeing to do stuff she was going to do anyway in exchange for political support.
 
Yeah Sousa's the person we need to take in the Syndicate. If and when we have to fight the Cardassians Sulu's the person we neeed.

The only thing that worries me is that we haven't identified people to serve as the Nimitz, Spruance, Halsey to Sulu's King.
 
It occurred to me that war with Cardassia kicks off not only that war, but may also signal the war between the Romulans and Klingons to begin (with all the deaths that will cause). That's a pretty heavy moral responsibility! I'm sure the Pacifist faction has head that theory as well, and the knowledge that war here means war in the Beta quadrant may also be influencing their actions.

Though if this Syndicate business seems to be occupying the Federation enough, the empires may decide 'good enough'.

I think it was mentioned they are each waiting for enough of their next generation cruisers before fighting. So our entanglement isn't likely to be the deciding factor in when their war kicks off.
 
Back
Top