- Location
- USA
Is Apiata supposed to be 10 RP and 5 PP or 10 PP and 5 RP?
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?
We were always going to have to bite the bullet and buy at increased cost, because we needed more expansions that we could have gotten paced out. Or what do you think running out of crew is going to cost us? Waiting on a decrease was the wrong choice then and will remain so in the future. Just pay what the price tag says.
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Sooo... Any comments on midcourse refit of Excelsiors under construction? And how does crewing work if we choose to build auxiliary vessels?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Every time people have voted for recruitment and crew increases, and there have been several, it was grabbing people's attention. The crew crunch was predictable in hindsight, but we could not have predicted the exact year it would arise, because we didn't predict heavy crew losses in the Gabriel Expanse. Plans to build five or six Renaissances in the lead wave were always predicated on the assumption that we'd run out of crew after staffing those ships, not before.
Now, I'm staying out of this build vote because I don't feel a strong opinion for or against the plans on offer.
But basically, this is a known issue, and literally everyone has favored dealing with it, even if they didn't go to the same lengths to deal with it that you've been advocating. The cupboard ran out faster than we expected because of the combination of Chen's bonus and heavy battle casualties.
Let's review past several snakepits, going back to 2307 since you mention that we've known we would have crew issues since around 2306 or so. I didn't bother to check the 2306 snakepit; I do not know what is in it.
2313:
We did not vote for any crew-increasing options.
It was that or give up the anti-Syndicate amendment or the Ambassador. As I recall, political will may have been so tight we'd have had to give up one of those plus the Excelsior refit, but I could very well be mistaken about that.
I can't find your participation in the vote, based on the tally here. Did you abstain from voting because you didn't like the fact that no one had proposed an academy-expanding plan?
2312:
We voted for an Academy expansion. And an Explorer Corps recruitment drive.
You voted for an alternate but similar plan, which replaced the Explorer Corps recruitment drive with a Tech Academy expansion (among other changes).
2311:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion (it would have cost 40pp), but did vote for the Betazoid counselors (which also cost 40pp).
You voted for that plan.
2310:
We did not vote for a 40pp Academy expansion. We did, however, vote for an Explorer Corps recruitment drive (25pp).
Other big-ticket items that year were a budget increase (25pp), the Vega and Lapycorias starbases (20pp each), and the MWCO (30pp).
You voted for an alternate plan that had the Betazoid counselors and an Explorer Corps recruitment drive. But that gave up the Vega starbase, two bulk resource mining colonies, and a diplomatic push on the Rigellians, among a few other minor differences. In hindsight, I'd say events have partially vindicated you on this vote; we can reasonably imagine that the 40pp that went to the Betazoids in 2311 would instead have gone to an Academy expansion. However, we wouldn't have the Vega starbase, or would have had to build it in 2311 or 2312.
2309:
We voted for an Academy expansion.
Or rather, the majority did; you voted for a different plan that did not contain the expansion.
2308:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion (35pp). We did, however, vote for a Science Academy expansion (20pp). A lot of berths and research teams were ordered during this year.
You did not participate in the vote one way or the other.
2307:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion (35pp). We did vote for an Explorer Corps recruitment drive (20pp).
So far as I can determine, you did not participate in the vote one way or the other.
2306:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion.
So far as I can determine, you did not participate in the vote.
We did not vote for any crew-increasing options.
It was that or give up the anti-Syndicate amendment or the Ambassador. As I recall, political will may have been so tight we'd have had to give up one of those plus the Excelsior refit, but I could very well be mistaken about that.
I can't find your participation in the vote, based on the tally here. Did you abstain from voting because you didn't like the fact that no one had proposed an academy-expanding plan?
2312:
We voted for an Academy expansion. And an Explorer Corps recruitment drive.
You voted for an alternate but similar plan, which replaced the Explorer Corps recruitment drive with a Tech Academy expansion (among other changes).
2311:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion (it would have cost 40pp), but did vote for the Betazoid counselors (which also cost 40pp).
You voted for that plan.
2310:
We did not vote for a 40pp Academy expansion. We did, however, vote for an Explorer Corps recruitment drive (25pp).
Other big-ticket items that year were a budget increase (25pp), the Vega and Lapycorias starbases (20pp each), and the MWCO (30pp).
You voted for an alternate plan that had the Betazoid counselors and an Explorer Corps recruitment drive. But that gave up the Vega starbase, two bulk resource mining colonies, and a diplomatic push on the Rigellians, among a few other minor differences. In hindsight, I'd say events have partially vindicated you on this vote; we can reasonably imagine that the 40pp that went to the Betazoids in 2311 would instead have gone to an Academy expansion. However, we wouldn't have the Vega starbase, or would have had to build it in 2311 or 2312.
2309:
We voted for an Academy expansion.
Or rather, the majority did; you voted for a different plan that did not contain the expansion.
2308:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion (35pp). We did, however, vote for a Science Academy expansion (20pp). A lot of berths and research teams were ordered during this year.
You did not participate in the vote one way or the other.
2307:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion (35pp). We did vote for an Explorer Corps recruitment drive (20pp).
So far as I can determine, you did not participate in the vote one way or the other.
2306:
We did not vote for an Academy expansion.
So far as I can determine, you did not participate in the vote.
So we voted for academy expansions twice in the past eight years. We voted for some kind of crew-increasing option six times out of the past eight years, with the sole exceptions being 2306 (a looong time ago, that was back around Page 185, and before I even joined the thread as I recall)... And in 2313, when political will was extremely tight as we all remember.
You have never voted for an academy expansion the majority voted against. You did once vote for the Betazoid counselors when the thread as a whole did not, though, and you can argue that this is equivalent since it has similar costs and purpose.
On the other hand... you voted against one of the academy expansions that the majority voted for. Four times out of the past eight, I can't figure out what you would have supported because I can't find your votes in the relevant tally posts.
So I don't think it's fair for you to be insulting about this. If everyone had just voted '[k] SynchronizedWritersBlock' on the four occasions you did vote, we'd have about the same number of crew we do now. We wouldn't have done an Academy expansion in 2309, but we'd have gotten the Betazoid counselors a year earlier, because you voted for them in 2310. Maybe we'd have gotten around to doing that Academy expansion in 2311 at the time when historically we voted for the Betazoid counselors instead.
So if we'd followed your votes on every year where you have a voting record, it looks like we'd have about...
1) +0.25 Explorer Corps crew in all categories due to pushing up the Betazoids a year.
2) -1 regular crew in all categories because of delaying the 2309 Academy expansion to 2311 (hopefully we'd have done it that year)
3) Unknown possible knock-on effects (due to things like not having the Vega starbase, maybe but maybe not having the Rigelians show up a year later, etc.)
And if you wanted us to vote for Academy expansions in 2306, 2307, 2308, or 2313... well, you didn't vote for anything, let alone the Academy expansions in question.
Have I misrepresented your voting record?
One good rule of thumb for future academy expansion would be to pair them with berths. If we want a berth, expand the academy either that same year or the previous one, for each new berth.
Indeed you have! But I don't think many people care for scrutinizing voting records, so perhaps take it to PM if you want to continue.
Indeed you have! But I don't think many people care for scrutinizing voting records, so perhaps take it to PM if you want to continue.
- Location
- USA
200 RP currently, need 224 for our current tech teams, 232 if we pick up a medical tech team or offensive doctrine team during the snakepit. I think once we see the captains logs for Q1 we can see if we will have the RP income for a team or 2 in the snakepit, more so since we will have 197 PP plus or minus any gains from this quarter.
- Location
- Patriarchova
We already have ships named Bull and Lion, so...
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/Him
What's the rationale for the increased cost, where, with the explosive Federation growth and hence, Starfleet's growth, the increasing demand was obvious? And if anyone looks at the population figures, the total numbers of people working directly for Starfleet are neglectable.
ClawClawBite
Mad Engineering!
- Location
- Seattle, WA
You mean like that time when Commander George Kirk bluffed the Romulans with a story about a failed sensor shield and a hidden fleet? (Novel: Enterprise)
Also:
[X][BUILD] 2314 6 Renaissance, 2 Miranda-A refits
Vote Tally : Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 1364 | Sufficient Velocity
##### NetTally 1.7.4
Task: BUILD
[X][BUILD] 2314 6 Renaissance, 2 Miranda-A refits
No. of Votes: 12
[X][BUILD] 2314 3 Miranda-A, 4 Renaissance, 2 Miranda-A refits
No. of Votes: 6
[X][BUILD] 2314 3 Centaur-A, 4 Renaissance, two Miranda refits
No. of Votes: 2
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: CREW1
[X][CREW1] Explorer Corps
No. of Votes: 21
[X][CREW1] Standard Starfleet
No. of Votes: 1
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: CREW2
[X][CREW2] Standard Starfleet
No. of Votes: 21
[X][CREW2] Explorer Corps
No. of Votes: 1
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: NAME1
[X][NAME1] Surranon
No. of Votes: 8
[X][NAME1] USS Kom Zerf
No. of Votes: 5
[X][NAME1] USS Voshev
No. of Votes: 5
[X][NAME1] Epona
No. of Votes: 1
[X][NAME1] Endeavour
No. of Votes: 1
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: NAME2
[X][NAME2] USS Rru'adorr
No. of Votes: 11
[X][NAME2] Turlough
No. of Votes: 8
Total No. of Voters: 25
##### NetTally 1.7.4
Task: BUILD
[X][BUILD] 2314 6 Renaissance, 2 Miranda-A refits
No. of Votes: 12
No. of Votes: 6
[X][BUILD] 2314 3 Centaur-A, 4 Renaissance, two Miranda refits
No. of Votes: 2
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: CREW1
[X][CREW1] Explorer Corps
No. of Votes: 21
No. of Votes: 1
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: CREW2
[X][CREW2] Standard Starfleet
No. of Votes: 21
No. of Votes: 1
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: NAME1
[X][NAME1] Surranon
No. of Votes: 8
[X][NAME1] USS Kom Zerf
No. of Votes: 5
[X][NAME1] USS Voshev
No. of Votes: 5
[X][NAME1] Epona
No. of Votes: 1
[X][NAME1] Endeavour
No. of Votes: 1
——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: NAME2
[X][NAME2] USS Rru'adorr
No. of Votes: 11
[X][NAME2] Turlough
No. of Votes: 8
Total No. of Voters: 25
- Location
- USA
Okay so currently we are at 197 PP, assuming no new options in the Snakepit here is my prelim plan (note it requires we gain 1 more PP this quarter)
As for why start building at Amarkia and Apiata instead of using an expansion at Utopia, right now we do not seem to have the crew to start additional builds, plus Utopia takes one year while starting a new shipyard takes 3 years to finish. Amarkia as it gives us one closer to the Cardassian border to use as a repair facility in case Apiata is overrun, Apiata to support our border zones since it seems to have settled into skirmishing instead of overt war and the Apiata yard would be well positioned to support our ships in the GBZ. It reduces the time in transit for damaged ships. New tech team as long as we have the RP gains from this quarter, I believe we want a second medical team. Diplo pushes on two neutrals to get them closer to be coming affiliates, we want to get as many species as affiliates as we can, both as that is inline with Federation goals and second to keep them out of the Cardassian sphere. Not sure which two to pick, we have a lot of good options. I am thinking the two new races we found this year, or one of the new races and either the Graterians or Yrillians.
- Request Academy Development, 35pp (Gain +.5 Officers/Enlisted/Techs throughput)
- Request Science Academy Development, 15pp (Gain +1 Techs throughput)
- Request new Shipyard at Amarkia, 35pp (12 turns, 1 3mt Berth, 1 1mt Berth)
- Request new Shipyard at Apiata, 35pp (12 turns, 1 3mt Berth, 1 1mt Berth) (assuming that the Apiata option will have 1 3mt berth and 1 1mt berth, if it is only a 3mt berth than it becomes 10 PP cheaper)
- Request Refit Program for Constellation 18pp ( I favor the cruiser refit but they cost the same, also this would allow members to refit their Constellations)
- Request new Tech Team to be added to your Ship Design Bureau, 20pp
- Request focused Diplomacy on a potential member species x2 40pp
As for why start building at Amarkia and Apiata instead of using an expansion at Utopia, right now we do not seem to have the crew to start additional builds, plus Utopia takes one year while starting a new shipyard takes 3 years to finish. Amarkia as it gives us one closer to the Cardassian border to use as a repair facility in case Apiata is overrun, Apiata to support our border zones since it seems to have settled into skirmishing instead of overt war and the Apiata yard would be well positioned to support our ships in the GBZ. It reduces the time in transit for damaged ships. New tech team as long as we have the RP gains from this quarter, I believe we want a second medical team. Diplo pushes on two neutrals to get them closer to be coming affiliates, we want to get as many species as affiliates as we can, both as that is inline with Federation goals and second to keep them out of the Cardassian sphere. Not sure which two to pick, we have a lot of good options. I am thinking the two new races we found this year, or one of the new races and either the Graterians or Yrillians.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
I would drop this.
With Apiata, it's mostly redundant. I would rather diplopush or make a deal.
I'm not opposed, but 3 berths means 3 Snakepits worth of Academy expansion is necessary, in addition to fixing the current issues. Yes, one is basically a repair berth, but it's still a thing.
So, Academy expansions for the next 7 straight years, then?
So, Academy expansions for the next 7 straight years, then?
Do the 2x1mt Shipyard at Betazoid and just build the auxiliaries there. Maybe in place of the Constellation refit, which we can't really use yet.
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
@OneirosTheWriter
Can we address the freighter shortage by building them in our unused small berths?
How much do they cost, and how is crewing them handled?
Can we address the freighter shortage by building them in our unused small berths?
How much do they cost, and how is crewing them handled?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
We don't have enough unused one-megaton berths right now to really need a policy on this; we may have one three-megaton berth open from 2314Q1 to 2315Q4 if nobody can think of anything to put in it, but that's different. All the other gaps this year and next year are too short to fit a ship in.
In the medium-term we may have gaps opening up in several berths in 2316.
And, hm. I certainly doubt the Betazoids will complain if the Starfleet shipyard built in their space is used entirely for auxiliary construction for a period of some years.
...
As to the voting record analysis, I wouldn't have gone to such lengths except to point out that the gap between those of us who support academy expansions most and those who support them the least is relatively narrow; it does not provide grounds for one side of the debate to berate the other. So long as this principle is respected, I think we'll be all right. Crew expansion efforts have been going on for a long time now, and if they haven't been done as intensely as we might like in hindsight, there were good reasons for that at the time.
In the medium-term we may have gaps opening up in several berths in 2316.
And, hm. I certainly doubt the Betazoids will complain if the Starfleet shipyard built in their space is used entirely for auxiliary construction for a period of some years.
...
As to the voting record analysis, I wouldn't have gone to such lengths except to point out that the gap between those of us who support academy expansions most and those who support them the least is relatively narrow; it does not provide grounds for one side of the debate to berate the other. So long as this principle is respected, I think we'll be all right. Crew expansion efforts have been going on for a long time now, and if they haven't been done as intensely as we might like in hindsight, there were good reasons for that at the time.
I'm going to import an an @anon_user post from the ship design bureau thread because I really want everyone to see it.
This is probably the most cost-for-performance balanced design to come out of the thread. It's a solid "all-8" ship with a single 9 in Presence for those all-important first contacts, yet crew and resources requirements aren't too insane. Probably we'll do something not a million miles from this. And it has a build time of 5 years and 1 quarter. The prototype would take 7 years and 3 quarters to build. Yeah, we're going to be building Excelsiors for a while. (And I can tell you, the build time is not going down with any of the alternative designs.)
This, plus dropping to the T0 Excelsior-pattern nacelles, got me to 240sr.
(Alternatively, swap those six Type-II Auto Systems for sixteen Type-I Auto Systems).
I'm not sure about 'not sky-high' - how do you feel about 220sr? - but I can definitely get you 7/7/6 crewing and mostly 8s stats on the 3.1mt hull:
'Just' at a cost of some defensive capability.
Technically, 2.685mt, but 2.75mt was the design goal.
Using large numbers of the Type-I Auto System amuses me. And quite possibly makes T'Rinta sad.
This is probably the most cost-for-performance balanced design to come out of the thread. It's a solid "all-8" ship with a single 9 in Presence for those all-important first contacts, yet crew and resources requirements aren't too insane. Probably we'll do something not a million miles from this. And it has a build time of 5 years and 1 quarter. The prototype would take 7 years and 3 quarters to build. Yeah, we're going to be building Excelsiors for a while. (And I can tell you, the build time is not going down with any of the alternative designs.)
I would imagine in addition to the 'cost' of building the campus expansion, it's a large amount of cost in personnel. An expansion means more students, which means more instructors you either have to pull from Starfleet, the civilian sector, or from member world fleets. All of those have the ability to annoy Council factions AND local governments. And in addition, drawing in more applicants to Starfleet -- ostensibly the best of the best -- means a potential brain-drain for groups like UESPA, the Amarki, etc and a possible corresponding loss of prestige. Councilors, particularly more regionalist ones, would be wary of appearing to undermine their planetary interests. Hence, it costs more because if you're opposed to Big Starfleet, you're going to put up more of a fuss to them putting in increasing requests to get Bigger.
In addition, factions like Development and Mercantilist would probably be a-okay with slowing down Starfleet's expansion in favor of member world and civilian development. Pacifists I expect would be a swing vote in this regard.
Last edited:
We did, however, request a quarter reduction for explorers as a balance change. Your point stands.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
[Looks up at anon_user's design shared by Briefvoice]
I assume that if we try to pack more points of anything into the statline, we end up causing crew cost or build time to skyrocket out of control?
I'd certainly prefer to avoid having our Ambassadors take drastically more than five years to build, or having something huge like 8/8/8 crew requirements.
I assume that if we try to pack more points of anything into the statline, we end up causing crew cost or build time to skyrocket out of control?
I'd certainly prefer to avoid having our Ambassadors take drastically more than five years to build, or having something huge like 8/8/8 crew requirements.
- Location
- USA
Would likely be part of a deal which would take PP from the snakepit in 2314
Well I have two diplopushes in their already, and making a deal tends to draw from our PP for the following year not the current one. In addition it will give us more repair yards.
Or we could keep some yards idle as repair slots. Really my idea for the Apiata and Amarkia yards is they would be open to cover any repairs to damaged ships, or we can put refits into them since that does not take crew. With how the Federation is stretched out all our main yards are on the Eastern half so it takes time to get back to a Starfleet shipyard. In addition those yards will not be online until 2317.Q2 and I expect them to be mainly used for repairs.
There is nothing requiring us to have all our berths producing ships at all possible times. We can actually keep some open for repairing damaged ships without relying on member worlds to have open berths for us, and it was something we had talked about in the past. A Utopia expansion on the other hand is one that I would consider designed to expand our production capacity.
And long term I want to work on at least one Starfleet shipyard per non border zone sector to shorten the time damaged ships need to travel before repairs can start, along with providing a distribution of industry to make it harder to cripple our shipbuilding in one strike.
I don't think we need the Constellation refit this year. We don't have the berth space for refits when we're still pushing through the Miranda refits. Instead I'd use the pp to buy that Special Resource mining colony option we found in Q4.