To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

sebsmith · Oct 11, 2016

Gingganz said:
Does anyone have an opinion which of Fleet in Being or Forward Defense is the better doctrine?

Forward Defense is the doctrine we just used in the last crisis, which is a big point in it's favor to me.

Fleet in Being (especially with Base Strike) is substantially better for conquering people, since those two together support and encourage the offensive use of star-bases to take and hold your opponents territory. (I personally find this out of character for us.)

OneirosTheWriter said:
For Sebsmith! Trying to come up with options that related to your entry that didn't have unacceptable forced distortions on the game was really tricky. I don't want to rail-road people onto a path, after all. Your own words should be making your case, not your rewards, after all! So...

(Pick one)
[ ][sebsmith] Forward Thinking - Next time a ship is being designed, gain +10 to the first Extra Tech
[ ][sebsmith] Think Tank - Gain a free +4 to the next Doctrine that is researched.

I think I have to go:

[x] Think Tank

That's closer to what I was hoping for (free xp for the team), and I'd write up some sort of design document on the ship if I wanted a bonus like Forward Thinking gives.

Which reminds me, we seem to be missing the Centaur saucer as an already researched component.

OneirosTheWriter said:
I'd probably just send you a copy of the combat program and let you have at it, lol.

Depending on what language it is in and how terrible your documentation that could theoretically work.

It probably won't.

Nix · Oct 11, 2016

sebsmith said:
Which reminds me, we seem to be missing the Centaur saucer as an already researched component.

Isn't the Centaur class using an Excelsior saucer? Hmm, I guess it can't since that would put it over the threshold. But the Excelsior saucer looks to be a bit too big anyway? I think in the movies it looks the same size as a Constitution saucer.

In favor of Fleet in Being you could argue that we have more home sectors than border sectors, so the discount could apply to more ships.

Gingganz · Oct 11, 2016

sebsmith said:
Fleet in Being (especially with Base Strike) is substantially better for conquering people

Fleet in Being can't be used for conquest. We get bonuses for defending our home systems and starbases, not for holding enemy territory.

sebsmith · Oct 11, 2016

Nix said:
Isn't the Centaur class using an Excelsior saucer? Hmm, I guess it can't since that would put it over the threshold. But the Excelsior saucer looks to be a bit too big anyway? I think in the movies it looks the same size as a Constitution saucer.

The model that appeared on screen is apparently made out of a correctly scaled Miranda roll-bar attached to an incorrectly scaled Excelsior saucer. In other words, while the saucer looks the same, it has to be of different size. (I'm hoping it's about half the size, because that enables a couple useful ships just with the parts we already have.)

Gingganz said:
Fleet in Being can't be used for conquest. We get bonuses for defending our home systems and starbases, not for holding enemy territory.

Build (or capture) Starbases in enemy territory, then get bonuses for defending them. If you don't consider that conquest, then you're using a pedantic definition of conquest.

maximorph · Oct 11, 2016

...so apparently you guys fought the Beast from Homeworld
And you're not dead, good job. I'll keep an eye on this quest.

Erandil · Oct 11, 2016

sebsmith said:
Build (or capture) Starbases in enemy territory, then get bonuses for defending them. If you don't consider that conquest, then you're using a pedantic definition of conquest.

You prefer to keep your ships concentrated in the home systems. Garrison requirements are increased for your member world systems, reduced for your border sectors. However, the Federation Council discounts the Combat value of ships in your home sector, and your ships are safer against hostile acts. When at war, you gain bonuses for fighting near your starbases or in your home system.

I think you are the one really stretching/mis-interpreting what Fleet in Being entails because in my eyes that is a pretty defensive/passive approach.

Keeper Of Storms · Oct 11, 2016

Yes, we can turn it into an Aggressive Fortification method... but it gives no bonuses, at any point, to assaulting Starbases. It is an intrinsically defensive Doctrine, regardless of its potential in Conquest.

pheonix89 · Oct 11, 2016

sebsmith said:
The model that appeared on screen is apparently made out of a correctly scaled Miranda roll-bar attached to an incorrectly scaled Excelsior saucer. In other words, while the saucer looks the same, it has to be of different size. (I'm hoping it's about half the size, because that enables a couple useful ships just with the parts we already have.)

Build (or capture) Starbases in enemy territory, then get bonuses for defending them. If you don't consider that conquest, then you're using a pedantic definition of conquest.

Starbase crashbuilds take on the order of a year. That's not remotely viable.

More to the point, wars of conquest are literally not an option in this quest. We're playing Starfleet Command, not the Federation Government as a whole. We don't actually get to do that.

Seriously dude, this is a Defense Doctrine that's focused on defending the core systems. Where are you getting "it's about conquest"?

There are arguments from philosophy/ICness against Fleet in Being, but "it's for conquest" isn't one.

AKuz · Oct 11, 2016

I've been a fan of decisive battle. We go out smash a fleet in (An entirely military target) then sit down to talk mutually agreeable terms. No taking territory, just smashing weapons of war. And it works on the defensive just as well

Keeper Of Storms · Oct 11, 2016

Eh, I like the synergy of the Fleet In Being and Base Strike doctrine. Going straight for Infrastructure to prevent loss of life seems like a potentially Starfleet Way of doing things.

OneirosTheWriter · Oct 11, 2016

Vote closed! And I'm going back to bed ;_;

Nix · Oct 11, 2016

OneirosTheWriter said:
Vote closed! And I'm going back to bed ;_;

Voting was still open?

Vote Tally : Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 111 | Sufficient Velocity
##### NetTally 1.7.4

[X] Plan Industry, Recruitment and Diplomacy
No. of Votes: 22

[X] Aftermath of War [289pp]
-[x] Request New Shipyard in Orbit around Andor [27pp]
-[x] Request 3Mt Berth at Andorian Shipyard [27pp]
-[x] Request 3Mt Berth at Tellar Prime Shipyard [27pp]
-[x] Request Funding to Start Utopia Planetia Shipyards [122pp]
-[x] Request Academy Expansion [10pp]
-[x] Request Focused Diplomacy on the <Orions> [10pp]
-[x] Request New Starbase in RBZ [20pp]
-[x] Request New Starbase in KBZ [30pp]
-[x] Request New Tech Team [Doctrine] to be added to our Design Bureau [30pp]
No. of Votes: 1

Keeper Of Storms

[x] Think Tank
No. of Votes: 1

sebsmith

Total No. of Voters: 24

sebsmith · Oct 11, 2016

pheonix89 said:
Starbase crashbuilds take on the order of a year. That's not remotely viable.

OneirosTheWriter said:
Crash Build Machado IV Outpost w/ Extended Sensors (+2 Science for Scanning) [Improve chances of intercepting infected inbounds] (4 turns)

Note that this is before one starts considering Mulberry Starbases.

Keeper Of Storms said:
Eh, I like the synergy of the Fleet In Being and Base Strike doctrine. Going straight for Infrastructure to prevent loss of life seems like a potentially Starfleet Way of doing things.

But smashing infrastructure is literally how you kill the most people? Dropping bombs on ports makes it harder to feed people. Destroying Orbital transmission stations leads to people freezing to death or dying from heat stroke when they can no longer power their temperature control. Infrastructure is often what keeps people alive, this means they die when you take it away. Worse, these are generally civilians. A military doctrine designed to slowly kill enemy civilians has to be the least Federation-like way to fight.

This is a continuos problem I have with all your statements on doctrine. The reasons you give keep being exactly wrong.

As a reminder, I was talking about the combination of Fleet-in-Being and Base Strike. Together these push for the offensive use of fortifications during war and keeping the vast majority of one's force at home when not fighting. While this maps to WW2 strategy well, that was after the age of discovery. As the Federation, we want as much of our fleet as possible out exploring.

Also, @pheonix89 I get that we can't easily go to war. This is why I want to avoid a doctrine optimized for fighting one at the expense of our peaceful mission. It would lead to a more boring quest.

Like, I can at least appreciate:

AKuz said:
I've been a fan of decisive battle. We go out smash a fleet in (An entirely military target) then sit down to talk mutually agreeable terms. No taking territory, just smashing weapons of war. And it works on the defensive just as well

This has some basis in the show, and could reasonably map to Federation policy. It's not my first choice, but it at least makes sense for what we want.

Void Stalker · Oct 11, 2016

I am with AKuz on Decisive Battle. This way we focus on intercepting and defeating our enemies before they reach our homeworlds and colonies. Likely combined with Forward Doctrine to provide more bonuses for deep space battles.

AlphaDelta · Oct 11, 2016

Void Stalker said:
I am with AKuz on Decisive Battle. This way we focus on intercepting and defeating our enemies before they reach our homeworlds and colonies. Likely combined with Forward Doctrine to provide more bonuses for deep space battles.

Cough Wolf 359

I want to win that battle.

pheonix89 · Oct 11, 2016

sebsmith said:
Note that this is before one starts considering Mulberry Starbases.

Outpost. Not Starbase. Not the same thing. Also, in friendly territory, in an area suited for use as a logistical hub.

But smashing infrastructure is literally how you kill the most people? Dropping bombs on ports makes it harder to feed people. Destroying Orbital transmission stations leads to people freezing to death or dying from heat stroke when they can no longer power their temperature control. Infrastructure is often what keeps people alive, this means they die when you take it away. Worse, these are generally civilians. A military doctrine designed to slowly kill enemy civilians has to be the least Federation-like way to fight.

This is a continuos problem I have with all your statements on doctrine. The reasons you give keep being exactly wrong.

Smashing military bases and military logistics is NOT how you kill the most people. Base strike is "I'm behind your lines, stuffing torpedoes in your supply lines". It's NOT running around blowing up civilian stuff.

As a reminder, I was talking about the combination of Fleet-in-Being and Base Strike. Together these push for the offensive use of fortifications during war and keeping the vast majority of one's force at home when not fighting. While this maps to WW2 strategy well, that was after the age of discovery. As the Federation, we want as much of our fleet as possible out exploring.

Also, @pheonix89 I get that we can't easily go to war. This is why I want to avoid a doctrine optimized for fighting one at the expense of our peaceful mission. It would lead to a more boring quest.

Like, I can at least appreciate:

This has some basis in the show, and could reasonably map to Federation policy. It's not my first choice, but it at least makes sense for what we want.

Your entire argument is based on assuming capabilities not in evidence, so please stop arguing like it's anything more than an unsupported hypothetical.

There are arguments against both Fleet in Being and Base Strike. That the pair of them is secretly a conquest doctrine when the synergies offered that apply to capabilities we know exist are purely defensive? Not so much.

SynchronizedWritersBlock · Oct 11, 2016

I personally prefer Forward Defense combined with Decisive Battle. But ultimately the question of doctrine is one of situation. If we have someone invading us and actually conquering starbases and systems? Of course Fleet in Being is better. If we're trying to deter hostile acts or detect hostilities before they happen? Forward Defense means more patrols. Want a doctrine set that synergizes with having a fleet full of explorers? You want Forward Defense and Wolf Pack. Want to conquer Generic Hostile Warmongers? Base Strike with Fleet in Being lets you leverage superior infrastructure. Then there is also the question of technology and of peacetime fleet composition.

Ultimately, picking doctrine is asking us to judge what kind of conflicts are both most likely and most existential. Having an appropriate doctrine will matter most in the most dire circumstance and in the most frequent ones. In a rare but relatively low-threat emergency we will just have to lean on the resources at hand even if doctrine is inappropriate.

That in mind, the reasons I prefer Forward Defense and Decisive Battle are:
- War with another polity is one of the most likely scenarios.
- The Federation is very unlikely to be an aggressor. We're also likely to invest in sensors and in communication tech. Those aspects suit the peacetime aspect of Foward Defense - knowing when a blow is coming.
- Forward Defense is suited to our likely Explorer-heavy fleet. While we will undoubtedly have smaller craft, the ability of our Explorers to operate independently or farther from supply is a crucial Federation strength, and they are going to anchor any fleet we have.
- Wolf Pack and Base Strike may actually be better than Decisive Battle in prosecuting a war to an immediate conclusion, but doesn't suit both Federation morals and more importantly Federation goals. The objective is not conquest or breaking the enemy, but defending Federation civilians first. Intercepting enemy fleets before they reach our worlds is necessary.
- Against a technologically superior opponent, like say, the Borg, concentrating force is also necessary. Hence, we need to be able to use Decisive Battle. Neither Base Strike nor Wolf Pack can defend against superweapons.

wkz · Oct 11, 2016

AKuz said:
I've been a fan of decisive battle. We go out smash a fleet in (An entirely military target) then sit down to talk mutually agreeable terms. No taking territory, just smashing weapons of war. And it works on the defensive just as well

That was also the Japanese's doctrine in WW2 (a single decisive battle to force Americans to the negotiation table). Just saying.

(And then, Midway happened).
Of course, if we can make it work...

DarknessSmiles · Oct 11, 2016

sebsmith said:
Build (or capture) Starbases in enemy territory, then get bonuses for defending them. If you don't consider that conquest, then you're using a pedantic definition of conquest.

thats base strike, not fleet in being.

im in favor of fleet in being and decisive battle for our tactics doctrines.

SynchronizedWritersBlock · Oct 11, 2016

Make no mistake, Decisive Battle is disadvantageous when the enemy's economic position is superior and when you're fighting an offensive war in areas the enemy can choose to ignore. But as a strategem against an equal foe or in areas that either party cannot ignore, it's not so bad. I'll also point out that while it failed for the Japanese, seeking decision at appropriate times served Britain well and failed Germany in WW1. Concentration of force strangled Germany and likely forced an early end to the ground fighting. And also arguably, Pearl Harbor was a Base Strike operation.

Moreover, control of space means you win orbitals means you win ability to make massive changes to the state on the ground. In that sense, in space you have the ability to force an offensive action through concentration in a way that old naval theory could not. And because the targets are planets or infrastructure in space, it's difficult to ignore such concentrations.

I don't see any doctrine currently available to us that emphasizes the control or command aspect the way Corbett did for naval warfare. Forward Defense is perhaps the closest. Fleet in Being may also be relevant, in the sense that it's Corbett's ideas applied to less aggressive operations or when locally inferior in power. A Mahanian decisive battle doctrine may not be that great, if only because we very much know how it can be countered these days. Corbett's ideas of command of the sea are easier to apply to space because they are still relevant.

ThoughtMaster · Oct 11, 2016

Is there a fleet doctrine for making it so that for every ship destroyed, we have already launched 5-10 more?

Briefvoice · Oct 11, 2016

I am in favor of.... deferring the question of a Fleet Tactics doctrine for the next five years in favor of first doing a Fleet Design doctrine.

Seriously, we can put the Fleet Tactics argument on ice for years and see what the galaxy looks like when we're actually ready to develop a doctrine.

pheonix89 · Oct 11, 2016

ThoughtMaster said:
Is there a fleet doctrine for making it so that for every ship destroyed, we have already launched 5-10 more?

You mean memetic WWII US? No, that's done by having a WTF OP industrial base.

Sightsear · Oct 11, 2016

ThoughtMaster said:
Is there a fleet doctrine for making it so that for every ship destroyed, we have already launched 5-10 more?

Closest would be Swarm Doctrine, which puts the emphasis on the deployment of Escort class ships. Probably works well with Forward Defence as well, since it encourages us to build enough hulls to actually defend the frontier.

1814

SynchronizedWritersBlock · Oct 11, 2016

Briefvoice said:
I am in favor of.... deferring the question of a Fleet Tactics doctrine for the next five years in favor of first doing a Fleet Design doctrine.

Seriously, we can put the Fleet Tactics argument on ice for years and see what the galaxy looks like when we're actually ready to develop a doctrine.

Yeah, it seems safe to cut our teeth on the Fleet Design Doctrine. Especially because ship design also takes time.

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

I feel lively today

Wants to be Seven Of Nine

Been Better

Cabal Core Commander

Wants to be Seven Of Nine

Probably on the other side of the world from you

Wants to be Seven Of Nine