We're what, a couple of years of research away from some fairly significant improvements for our starbases? Do we need to invest in those upgrades or will they happen automatically?

Also, I definitely agree that we want to build more starbases over member worlds. No doubt these worlds would agree. Perhaps we can work something out with their councillors, act as an intermediary between them and other factions who could be persuaded to support such an initiative?
 
I'm extremely partial to Swarm Doctrine, particularly in how it's mechanics agree with efficient Escorts/inefficient Explorers.

Just imagine 3 Keplers adding their stats together to an event.
 
I'm extremely partial to Swarm Doctrine, particularly in how it's mechanics agree with efficient Escorts/inefficient Explorers.

Just imagine 3 Keplers adding their stats together to an event.

yeah but it's really combat inefficient. lone ranger lets us get more out of the limited amount of combat power the concoul lets us have.
 
We're what, a couple of years of research away from some fairly significant improvements for our starbases? Do we need to invest in those upgrades or will they happen automatically?

Also, I definitely agree that we want to build more starbases over member worlds. No doubt these worlds would agree. Perhaps we can work something out with their councillors, act as an intermediary between them and other factions who could be persuaded to support such an initiative?
I suspect that's what we're already doing to get starbases (massive orbital fortress-stations) constructed for a (relatively) paltry 20pp each.
 
I suspect that's what we're already doing to get starbases (massive orbital fortress-stations) constructed for a (relatively) paltry 20pp each.
15 PP +12 for each one currently in sector with KBZ being listed at 25, still that matches up with a lot of infrastructure projects with new shipyards running 20-35pp. I think they got cheaper when development increased their seats on the council

Edit: Current tally-
Vote Tally : Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 1208 | Sufficient Velocity
##### NetTally 1.7.6

Task: AUX

[29][AUX] Commodore Alejandro Suarez - Expanded Field Repair capacity
[9][AUX] Captain Maeth th'Irnyar - 10% Discount off required Logistics level
[8][AUX] Commodore Charlotte O'Dea - 1 Free GBZ Intel Report


——————————————————————————————————————————————
Task: FLEET

[30][FLEET] Rear Admiral Rachel Ainsworth
[12][FLEET] Rear Admiral John Harriman
[4][FLEET] Rear Admiral Waafrinch Iorin Skef
[1][FLEET] Rear Admiral Rachael Ainsworth


——————————————————————————————————————————————
Task: TF1

[38][TF1] Commodore Jessica Rivers
[6][TF1] Commodore Thraan th'Marlaas
[1][TF1] Commodore Michel Thuir


——————————————————————————————————————————————
Task: TF2

[25][TF2] Commodore Revak
[16][TF2] Commodore Michel Thuir
[5][TF2] Commodore Constance Lecras

Total No. of Voters: 49
 
Last edited:
15 PP +12 for each one currently in sector with KBZ being listed at 25, still that matches up with a lot of infrastructure projects with new shipyards running 20-35pp. I think they got cheaper when development increased their seats on the council
Very possibly. Although "20pp" was basically just an estimate, the point being that these things are big and arguably we're doing a lot of political maneuver and wheeling and dealing just to get them to cost as little as they do.
 
@OneirosTheWriter, I would like to see more Shipyard Expansion, logistical, and industrial options.

Like dual 1 mt, 2 mt, and 3 mt options for Modular Shipyards (UP style shipyards, which should be the new Standard Federation Shipyard for both SF, as well as Member worlds), Logistical equivalents to the Heavy Industrial Park that was offered last snakepit, maybe more information on what exactly 'Critical Ship Infrastructure means, and how it would benefit us for it's price, and maybe an option to build and/or convert 2 mt berths into more 2.5 mt berths for Excelsior building/refitting.

Especially once we start Ambassador Mass Production, which at this point may be a 5 year build, which will put a serious crimp in our big berths, as it's almost certain that we won't have Chen's bonus at that point in time.

I'd also like to see options to build more kinds of Defense related infrastructure, and not just Starbases, but things like sensor outposts, secure Sub-Space Relays, Logistical Hubs, and for Outposts to make a return in some form, even if they don't add to sector Defense.
 
Given the expected cost in resources, time and crew most people are expecting that the Ambassador will be a Explorer Corp/fleet flagship with Excelsior production continuing (probably as the Excelsior-A refit version).

Unless our construction ability jumps massively we won't be Ambassador spamming.
 
Vote will close in an hour's time.

I'm out of the house atm so I'll have to respond to the various doctrine questions when I get home.

Suffice to say, your doctrine is the one that involves independently operating explorers. They're not supposed to get drawn to the same destination together. That's why they get bonuses to responding and to completing events. It's supposed to advantage running with the biggest, baddest heavy explorers you can.

Edit: this also stops throwing 'pocket explorers' at me en masse to completely break the event system over their knee.
 
Last edited:
Given the expected cost in resources, time and crew most people are expecting that the Ambassador will be a Explorer Corp/fleet flagship with Excelsior production continuing (probably as the Excelsior-A refit version).

Unless our construction ability jumps massively we won't be Ambassador spamming.
If Ambassadors end up being a 5 or so year build, we won't have to spam them to take up most of our big berths. By the time we can start building them, in ten years or so, we are most likely going to be able to afford more than one a year, which will be enough to keep all of our current big berths busy.

A few more 2.5 mt Light Explorer/Heavy Cruiser berths being available would most likely be a good thing.
 
Five years isn't so much longer than four years that it 'should' present major problems with production. We end up making four Ambassadors in the time it takes to make five Excelsiors, and we're already quite capable of turning out two Excelsiors a year (on average). Two of our berths may prove too small to build Ambassadors, of course- but that would still leave six, permitting us to average one Ambassador a year while using the Lor'Vela and Ana Font 2.5-megaton berths to refit or build Excelsiors.

But seriously, this is just not that big of a problem, and arguably the five-year construction time would help defray the higher crew/resource cost by amortizing it over longer periods anyway. We could easily turn out, instead of an average of "about two" Excelsiors a year, an average of one Ambassador and slightly less than one Excelsior. If we commission literally just one or two more three-megaton berths, we have just as much ability to turn out five-year Ambassadors as we did Excelsiors, assuming we don't run out of crew or resources.

Vote will close in an hour's time.

I'm out of the house atm so I'll have to respond to the various doctrine questions when I get home.

Suffice to say, your doctrine is the one that involves independently operating explorers. They're not supposed to get drawn to the same destination together. That's why they get bonuses to responding and to completing events. It's supposed to advantage running with the biggest, baddest heavy explorers you can.
[looks around at various people]

Itoldthemso. :p

It does seem logical, thinking about it, that a doctrine which focuses on mighty explorers that necessarily exist only in small numbers would NOT encourage those explorers to 'bunch up' in any one place responding to a single event. After all, a sector garrison fleet might well consist of only two explorers, even with a fairly high Defense requirement. If both explorers show up to the same event, that means there is literally no one else to do anything about any problem elsewhere in the sector for some time afterwards.

It's one thing to have two ships respond to the same event when there are four or five ships in the sector fleet. It's another matter entirely to have two ships double up on an event when they're the only ones around. Too much of that and you get the classic Star Trek "It's headed for Earth! We're the only ship in the sector..." nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Five years isn't so much longer than four years that it 'should' present major problems with production. We end up making four Ambassadors in the time it takes to make five Excelsiors, and we're already quite capable of turning out two Excelsiors a year (on average). Two of our berths may prove too small to build Ambassadors, of course- but that would still leave six, permitting us to average one Ambassador a year while using the Lor'Vela and Ana Font 2.5-megaton berths to refit or build Excelsiors.

But seriously, this is just not that big of a problem, and arguably the five-year construction time would help defray the higher crew/resource cost by amortizing it over longer periods anyway. We could easily turn out, instead of an average of "about two" Excelsiors a year, an average of one Ambassador and slightly less than one Excelsior. If we commission literally just one or two more three-megaton berths, we have just as much ability to turn out five-year Ambassadors as we did Excelsiors, assuming we don't run out of crew or resources.

Or we could design a ~4-year Ambassador. The 5-year designs are also awfully expensive.



There isn't even the slightest reason to believe it would be an effect of the doctrine itself.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would the doctrine that promotes explorers change the rules so that explorers could no longer work together? This seems more an oversight by Oneiros than anything. Having it so that two explorers can't respond together is fine, but having it be part of Lone Ranger is absurd.
Lone Ranger Doctrine merely provides bonuses to Explorers and outnumbered ships. It does not tell Explorers to be alone.
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.
Yes, it gives Explorers and Cruisers a bonus to response rolls, as clearly stated in Lone Ranger.

That's it.

So, is that good enough, or are we going to continue the willful ignorance tack?
 
Or we could design a ~4-year Ambassador. The 5-year designs are also awfully expensive.
I am totally on board with restricting ourselves to Ambassador designs that can be completed within four years, among other things because that means that the prototype will 'only' take six years to complete rather than seven and a half, permitting us to start series production of subsequent Ambassadors eighteen months sooner and get our first wave of new ones a total of two and a half years sooner.

That said, my basic point is just that we shouldn't assume that a five-year Ambassador disastrously, ruinously cripples our explorer production infrastructure, at least not in and of itself. It's inconvenient, but that doesn't mean unmanageable.
 
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.

Agreed. My main problem with the Oberth is that it's a terrible match for our existing shipyard infrastructure; it's far too small for the shipbuilding capacity that we have. Unfortunately, we don't actually have any other designs that use a similarly-sized berth (unless you want to count the Soyuz, which you shouldn't).

I'd sort of like to have more 'support' designs in our roster, including ships in the 500kt range that we can use for medical, engineering, and logistical support without requiring us to beg, borrow, or steal them from other Federation institutions. Clearly, those sorts of designs exist, which means that there are shipyards that produce them; they're just not part of our assets. Given that we seem to be moving away from a paradigm that assumes that nebulous clouds of those ships exist, and towards a paradigm that's paying more attention to those little guys, it'd be helpful if we had some native capacity to make ships in that range.
 
That said, my basic point is just that we shouldn't assume that a five-year Ambassador disastrously, ruinously cripples our explorer production infrastructure, at least not in and of itself. It's inconvenient, but that doesn't mean unmanageable.
And where did I say that?

A five year Ambassador is only going to take up all the 3 mt berths for production, because in ten years, I'm pretty sure we're going to be able to easily afford two 5 Year Ambassadors a year, along with an Excelsior/Cruiser or couple of Escorts. Maybe more, depending on what the Gabriel Expanse gives us.
 
And where did I say that?

A five year Ambassador is only going to take up all the 3 mt berths for production, because in ten years, I'm pretty sure we're going to be able to easily afford two 5 Year Ambassadors a year, along with an Excelsior/Cruiser or couple of Escorts. Maybe more, depending on what the Gabriel Expanse gives us.
Two explorers a year is a pretty darn good rate of production, so I wouldn't stress about it too much.
 
Unrelated but have some things to look forward to/think about re:canon and the future

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/database/history5.htm said:
2302 Jaresh-Inyo begins his political career (DS9: "Paradise Lost").
2311 Thousands of Federation citizens die in the Tomed Incident. Following the incident the Treaty of Algeron is signed between the Federation and the Romulans in which the Federation is obliged not to develop cloaking technology. The Romulans subsequently go into isolation (TNG: "The Neutral Zone", "The Defector", "The Pegasus").
2311 The interdimensional planet Meridian materializes briefly in this universe in the Trialus system (DS9: "Meridian").
2313 Kevin Uxbridge, actually an immortal Douwd, meets a human woman named Rishon in the city of New Martim Vaz in the Atlantic Ocean on Earth and marries her (TNG: "The Survivors").
2313 On Acamar III, Gatherer Penthor-Mul of the Lornak is killed by a microvirus designed by the last Tralesta (TNG: "The Vengeance Factor").
2314 Kira Meru is born (DS9: "Wrongs Darker than Death or Night").
2314 Mark and Anne Jameson get married (TNG: "Too Short a Season").
2319 The multiplex pattern buffer is invented which eradicates transporter psychosis (TNG: "Realm of Fear").
2319 The father of Mordan IV leader Karnas is assassinated by a rival tribe, leading to a crisis that involves the Federation and is resolved with an illegal weapons deal by Admiral Jameson (TNG: "Too Short a Season").
2320 Miranda Vigo is born on New Gaul (TNG: "Bloodlines").
2320 Raymond "Renny" Marr is born. He will be killed by the crystalline entity (TNG: "Silicon Avatar").
2322 The Bajoran wormhole undergoes a brief subspace inversion (DS9: "The Visitor").
Around 2323 After he has applied in vain a year before, Picard is admitted to Starfleet Academy. He is the first freshman to win the Academy Marathon (TNG: "Coming of Age", "The First Duty", "Best of Both Worlds").
Jaresh-Inyo has probably been spending his time thus far in some colonial gov't, but we might eventually see him on the Council.
Obv. we fully averted the Tomed Incident, but time will tell how our relations with Romulus end up developing...
Kira's mom is born next year, and ten years from now we'll have a cadet Picard, in more Notable Persons news.

And on a more pressing note-- we should be careful come 2322 if Bajor is still in Cardassian hands. The Wormhole might become detectable, if only for a brief interval.
 
What kind of instalation is Collie?
It's a sub outpost sized installation, useful for basic replenishment, maintenance facilities for small craft, a hub for intrastellar craft, and a way to mark territory. But it is not really a defensive emplacement.

Pretty much every spot that has Fed civilians on it will have something like this, but it is below your notice in most circumstances.

Vote closed, tally please!
 
Last edited:
Obv. we fully averted the Tomed Incident, but time will tell how our relations with Romulus end up developing...
I think cloaks -- uh, the ship kind -- are actually banned tech, still. So some incident must have replaced Tomed that still led to some form of the Treaty of Algeron. Did we give up cloaks are part of the Biophage stuff?

Easiest thing is to retcon the Tomed Incident to 2299 -- it could be part of the reason why our predecessor left in disgrace (and also why Harriman had to give up Enterprise????).

It's a sub outpost sized installation, useful for basic replenishment, maintenance facilities for small craft, a hub for intrastellar craft, and a way to mark territory. But it is not really a defensive emplacement.

Pretty much every spot that has Fed civilians on it will have something like this, but it is below your notice in most circumstances.
I was thinking it might be something like the Starbase we see all the time in DS9. Uh, that isn't DS9 itself, obvs.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top