Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
And really, our escort/capital ship ratio only seems skewed if you count the Constellations as cruisers. Statwise and as we actually use them, they are escorts.
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?
- Location
- Earth
I am going to be distinctly unimpressed and unamused if that rule turns out to be a thing, because it makes no damn sense either mechanically or narratively.I hope I don't have to explain why it doesn't narratively, but mechanically if we can afford to put two or more explorers in a sector they should be able to have a chance to both respond together. It's not like you can't balance it after all, just make it much harder for another explorer to pass the response dice check if at least one explorer already has, with the rational being they're usually likely to be at opposite ends of the sector in order to provide the most patrol coverage.
Since we can usually only have two response ships given our current doctrine, that would balance things since theoretically the only way to make it particularly likely to get two explorers to respond would be to put something like 4 or more in a single sector which would be completely inefficient.
Anyway, before I rant about this further let's just ask @OneirosTheWriter if that rule is a thing.
ClawClawBite
Mad Engineering!
- Location
- Seattle, WA
In practice, we have light and heavy cruisers.
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
Except that the Connie-Bees and Renaissance are explicitly light cruisers, with our Explorers being the equivalent of a heavy cruiser. The terminology is kind of arbitrary, but Constellations are technically classified as light cruisers, while being used in a role identical to our escorts. Oneiros was debating at one point officially swapping them over to escorts, but he hasn't yet. But in terms of how we use them, they are escorts.
Maybe instead of thinking of it purely as a doctrine that promotes explorers, think of it as a fleet doctrine that promotes the idea that only one lone explorer is necessary for any given mission. Hand that explorer all the tools it needs, but those tools do not include more explorers, as any given explorer should be out handling its own mission.
You know, like it says in the description.
There's still time to swap to Combined Fleet if you're really up in arms over this. But it's been clear from the start that LR is actually about explorers operating independently.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
...People kept shouting at me when I speculated that Lone Ranger might not be a good doctrine for successfully coordinating multiple ships...
You keep saying "we use them as escorts". What in the world do you mean by that? Personally, I have always tried to use them as cruisers, successfully I think. If you've been using them as escorts than one of us isn't using them like they think they're using them!
For me, "use them as cruisers" means I'm not happy unless I can have at least one cruiser per sector. Which is why Rigel, Amarkia, and Apinae sectors makes me unhappy right now.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Except nothing in the lone ranger doctrine states that it reduces the number of explorers that can respond to events, meanwhile swarm specifically states the number of ships that can respond is increased by 1, and forward defense has a tech that states event rates in home sectors are reduced.
Really where Lone Ranger fits that is the bonuses it gives to ships that are outnumbered by their opponent.
Really where Lone Ranger fits that is the bonuses it gives to ships that are outnumbered by their opponent.
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
I'm saying I wouldn't trust a Constellation with anything I wouldn't trust a Centaur with. They fill our garrison requirements and help cover more area, but I'd prefer not to rely on them to be the flagship of a sector or engage in solo combat. I don't see much of a difference between having two Centaur in a sector and having one Centaur and a Constellation. If you were trying to arrange things so that the sectors without an Explorer or Connie-Bee had a Constellation as flagship, I honestly didn't notice.
AKuz
Been Better
- Location
- A Rising Tide of Horrors
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I still think we should find a way to build like a quad 1mt yard at Indoria, get Sousa to strike on of her deals with development and Hawks (Development want infrastructure/ Hawks want escort births to build escorts faster) as major parties and expansion as a minor one (Expand capability to high level associate/brand new member) as the Indorians are in the middleish of the Federation and and seem like the kind of people that would excel at mass building capable, practical designs.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I always wanted Combined Arms.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I always wanted Combined Arms.
- Location
- USA
Apiata would be better to serve as a repair facility for ships in the GBZ, more so if we can get 1 or 2 3mt berths there as well
It is right there in the bloody name of the doctrine. Lone Ranger. You get a guy with silver bullets and MAYBE Tonto. You don't get the entire US Cavalry.
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
The Indorians are right on the edge of the Federation, the farthest homeworld from Sol. Plus putting a major shipyard there is just begging for a Cardassian attack when the war starts, although admittedly Indoria will be targeted anyways. If we do build shipyards there, we better get a Starbase first.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The idea in broad is appealing, the only problem being that Indorian space is really close to the Cardassians and the yard might get blown up. Then again, it'd also be a great place to repair our escorts and cruisers if they get banged up in wartime, assuming the yard doesn't get blown up.
I honestly am on board with the idea that our next yard should emphasize one-megaton berths, in large numbers. We can hopefully finish such a yard and squeeze a round or two of mass-produced escorts or cruisers out of it before Patricia Chen retires or gets promoted.
- Location
- USA
Stick them in Apiata, they have a bigger combat fleet and a Starbase there and it would serve as a front line repair station along with supporting our GBZ push.
I find the idea that we should ignore the flavor completely laughable, and doubly so because we've been told that it affects ship response rules.
Derek58
Rocket Punch is Best Punch
- Location
- Getter Valhalla
Yes, it gives Explorers and Cruisers a bonus to response rolls, as clearly stated in Lone Ranger.
That's it.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The Indorian fleet is actually not THAT much smaller than the Apiata fleet, and it's closer to the Cardassian Border Zone squadron and its base at Lapycorias. There are some arguments for putting it in Indorian space. Not least among those arguments is that it represents a major commitment to the Indorians that we're not just going to write them off in the event of war (as some suggested doing in the runup to the Treaty of Celos). The Apiata know we have their backs, but the Indorians don't, and if they're going to start shipping us resources that could be used directly to build up their own defenses, they deserve some reassurance.
I don't think we should be talking about where to put this yard in the context of the Gabriel Expanse push. Realistically it'll be a year or two before we can even seriously consider building new shipyards from a political point of view, and another year or two to get the yard started. Three or four years from now, it is likely that the situation in the Gabriel Expanse will be looking rather different.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
It is half the size of the Apiata fleet and only has an outpost there. In addition a shipyard in Apiata aids the GBZ after we claim it as well. I would like to see if we can cut a deal with development to get some yards up. If we can I would like to do a deal for 2 1mt yards at Apiata and 2 1mt at Indoria. Gives coverage on the North and South side of the area of space facing Cardassia. Still have to see when they become members and if we can scrounge up the PP for it or make a deal
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Indorian fleet is smaller, less advanced, and less militarized. Apinae also has a better orbital defense grid.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I'm sorry, my information must be out of date. The Indorion fleet is up around Combat 50 last I heard, but I hadn't realized the Apiata were closing in on Combat 100.
Also... [sighs].
The lack of defenses and heavy forces down around Indoria is exactly my point. They're building up and their armed forces are far from weak, but they're not capable of preparing against the sheer scale of attack they're likely to face by themselves. If we don't commit heavily to building up their defenses they are likely to be overrun in the opening weeks of a war.
Try looking at it from their point of view for a change, instead of ours. If you were an Indorion, would you be 'practical' by advocating fighting to the last gasp to stop the Cardassians in the event of war? Or would it seem more prudent to advocate surrendering or even switching sides to avoid getting brutalized by their invasion fleet, if the Cardassians show up with something like Combat 80 or 100?
If we're going to accept the Indorians as members, or even affiliates, we're exposing them to risk in the event of war. We have an obligation to do something about that risk, rather than refusing to detach ships or set up infrastructure down there because "meh, Indorians are weak." If they're so weak, then either we shouldn't have recruited them in the first place, or we need to put in some time and effort to make them stronger so they can defend themselves if they get caught up in a war not of their choosing.
Now, maybe building a big shipyard at Indoria isn't the right way to start doing that. But if we choose to do nothing along those lines, and just accept the Indorians' gifts of resources and crew without providing them with a strong, credible defense that can reasonably hope to protect them in wartime... We are betraying the Indorians by acting that way.
Also... [sighs].
The lack of defenses and heavy forces down around Indoria is exactly my point. They're building up and their armed forces are far from weak, but they're not capable of preparing against the sheer scale of attack they're likely to face by themselves. If we don't commit heavily to building up their defenses they are likely to be overrun in the opening weeks of a war.
Try looking at it from their point of view for a change, instead of ours. If you were an Indorion, would you be 'practical' by advocating fighting to the last gasp to stop the Cardassians in the event of war? Or would it seem more prudent to advocate surrendering or even switching sides to avoid getting brutalized by their invasion fleet, if the Cardassians show up with something like Combat 80 or 100?
If we're going to accept the Indorians as members, or even affiliates, we're exposing them to risk in the event of war. We have an obligation to do something about that risk, rather than refusing to detach ships or set up infrastructure down there because "meh, Indorians are weak." If they're so weak, then either we shouldn't have recruited them in the first place, or we need to put in some time and effort to make them stronger so they can defend themselves if they get caught up in a war not of their choosing.
Now, maybe building a big shipyard at Indoria isn't the right way to start doing that. But if we choose to do nothing along those lines, and just accept the Indorians' gifts of resources and crew without providing them with a strong, credible defense that can reasonably hope to protect them in wartime... We are betraying the Indorians by acting that way.
Last edited:
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
I agree, which is why I think the next building project should be a Starbase for Indoria. My concern is that building four new berths at Indoria without buffing the defenses is like slipping a steak around their necks and throwing them to the wolves. Shipyards won't keep them safe, at least not directly. I like the idea of building shipyards at Indoria, don't get me wrong. I'm just worried we have the wrong priorities.