- Location
- Patriarchova
[><][NAME 2] USS Rr'urud'rrrorddor'orruher'ord
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?
[><][NAME 2] USS Rr'urud'rrrorddor'orruher'ord
USS Courageous' personification is now a stoner, pass it on.
More seriously, while Earth has associations with the name, I would be seriously surprised if the Andorians (and Amarki) don't have comparable names for historical vessels. I'd associate names like Warspite, Ark Royal, Yorktown etc with humans more. Enterprise falls into this as well, but it was also the name of a ship that spearheaded the formation of the UFP so arguably it's been uplifted to being an all-Federation name.
No doubt like how the Enterprise ready-room has models of the USS Enterprise carrier, the Courageous ready room has models of the Andorian and Human Courageous-es. And the crew gets into endless debates about which would win.
Some Tellarites grumble that the Industrious would beat either, and what's more if it was at all historically accurate to Tellarite production capacity they would include her sister ship, the Indefatigable. WHICH THEN SETS OFF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DEBATE.
Well of course the Industrious, being a 32,000 ton battle crawler, would be able to use terrain features as cover to its advantage, whilst the Courageous-es being confined to the water would be wide open to counter fire.
Caitian: You said what about my mother? I demand satisfaction, claws at dawn!
Last edited:
I mean, I'd be willing to do the "hire Yrillian ships to temporarily ease our transport needs" deal, but only because it's a very Sousa "solve one problem with another" type of thing that is meant as much to improve relations as to get more freighters.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I agree, Briefvoice; basically my point is that we should not spend Sousa deals on things that COULD be achieved just by spending pp (like building more berths). Whereas we should totally spend them on things that have desired political ramifications- like the aid convoy, like the Mercantilists helping to midwife a new Orion political order, or like hiring the Yrillians to do shipping for us.
#pretendversusdebatesarefun
I honestly do not know what would happen if we actually voted for a plan to build a cargo ship in one of our military berths. We've never even tried to do that, and Oneiros has never told us we can't. On the other hand, Oneiros hasn't listed it as an option. It's not an obviously impossible thing the way that ordering one of our berths to build an Akira or an Intrepid would be, though.
Conversely, the Courageouses can move faster than continental drift.
#pretendversusdebatesarefun
Last edited:
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
I don't think we're given the option to build auxiliaries in these yards, but Oneiros might establish a way to do so in the future. Or cut more berth-sharing deals with member nations like we did with UE and Tellarites.
Given the complexities of the TBG economics behind the scenes, I expect Oneiros to give us auxiliary quotas, which we'll start using our new auxiliary shipyard to meet, with some sort of penalty if the quotas aren't met. Hopefully we'll also be allowed to use our regular shipyards to fill in capacity too.
edit:
Relevant info:
Okay, I see where the confusion is coming from.
In a single post, Oneiros listed contradictory income from the Apiata:
@OneirosTheWriter, which one is correct? I'm assuming it's the "10pp 5rp" one, while Void Stalker is assuming it's the "10rp 5pp" one.
edit: The official tally is definitely assuming the "10pp 5rp" version.
edit2: And the front page is showing the "10rp 5pp" version despite the EOY tally assuming "10pp 5rp"
If that number is coming from my audit, it's out of date. Oneiros and I are still "negotiating" on the final numbers. With the anti-Syndicate legislation amendment effect delayed until this year, I expect our pp to currently be either 192 or 193.
Also, I expect the SR to get revised down to 603 SR or actually increased to 623 SR, depending on a mysterious "Q1 Sarek: 20" entry in his ledger.
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly remember that everyone thought building a bunch of freighter/cargo ships was a good idea yesterday.
I haven't really had time to do more than skim today's conversation.
I haven't really had time to do more than skim today's conversation.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
There's debate over whether we should build more auxiliary berths.
Personally I am against building more Auxiliary berths.
A) The deal was that we get 4. If we needed more, then the council would have ordered more.
B) There are concerns over security. Civilian warp cores are low powered, and are very locked down. Fleet-grade cores are almost literally contained antimatter. Civilian-grade shipwrights are not qualified for Fleet-spec work.
C) We will have too many. If we build more auxiliary berths, we may not be able to fully utilize them after our burst finishes. Sure, they'll be busy for a while, but after that's done, they'll be mostly idle. This can be avoided by using Fleet-grade yards to build freighters.
GET IN LINE, FURBALL. I HAVE SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS WITH THIS ONE OF A POULTRY NATURE.
Would depend on the Courageous. Earth-side, the submarine Courageous can fire Harpoons, which might be able to target a land object the size of the Industrious, and it's sub-marine nature would mean it could fire undetected. Were it the aircraft carrier Courageous, the Industrious' primary advantage of mobility and strategic depth is removed. Were it a Courageous light cruiser, I suspect the Industrious would make short work of it.Conversely, the Courageouses can move faster than continental drift.
#pretendversusdebatesarefun
The Andorian Courageous-es are similarly all over the map. It'd be cheating to include the IGSV Courageous, which submerged and mounted a pair of surface to orbit particle cannons for attacking potential Vulcan (and later, Romulan) landing ships.
Chaos Blade
Procrastinating Writer
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Maybe we should attack the problem from another angle? say trying to entice more people to join, which would make the local governments to try and expand their facilities, and give us a reduced cost to expansions or build another academies elsewhere (iirc, only SanFran trains starfleet crews or is academy abstracted?)
this is something we might wanna ask the QM
Good enough for me.
I'll go find a no-berths plan and rubber stamp it.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Each academy expansion gets:
So, if you got a dropout quote of 90% for academy, and 50% for auxilaries, you need 750 additional students and 750*2*10=15000 auxiliaries. No wonder the Federation gets political problems if such a huge investment is required.
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
We aren't voting on berths now. This is the shipbuilding vote. Berth expansions are part of the snakepit next quarter.
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
We'll get the first automation tech in something like six or seven turns, that should help a bit between refits using the high-automation subframe variants and the subtech that actually grants reduced enlisted requirements directly.
That explains why I couldn't find it. I'll find a freighter plan to vote for latter because everyone thought it was a good idea yesterday.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
So revising my vote to include names...
Tellarite and Caitian names it is, though I'll flip the EC and non-EC crewing around to get a Caitian-named EC ship instead of a Tellarite-named one.
[X][CREW1] Standard Starfleet
[X][CREW2] Explorer Corps
[X][NAME1] Voshev
[X][NAME2] Rru'adorr
On the build plan: I'd really love to vote for the 6 Renaissance plan. It's just that that's the riskiest plan, because unlike SR shortages, there's not even a political way to get more standard crew immediately. Well, we could mothball a Constellation, but with our shortage of hulls, I'm very leery of doing that in the next two years. I also expect next year to have more than the 1/1/1 crew casualties modeled in the shipbuild plan sheet.
If I could get some guarantee for a snakepit option to get some standard crew infusion, I'd be all over the 6 Renaissance plan. I may have listed out the build plans, but I'll abstain from that vote for now.
Tellarite and Caitian names it is, though I'll flip the EC and non-EC crewing around to get a Caitian-named EC ship instead of a Tellarite-named one.
[X][CREW1] Standard Starfleet
[X][CREW2] Explorer Corps
[X][NAME1] Voshev
[X][NAME2] Rru'adorr
On the build plan: I'd really love to vote for the 6 Renaissance plan. It's just that that's the riskiest plan, because unlike SR shortages, there's not even a political way to get more standard crew immediately. Well, we could mothball a Constellation, but with our shortage of hulls, I'm very leery of doing that in the next two years. I also expect next year to have more than the 1/1/1 crew casualties modeled in the shipbuild plan sheet.
If I could get some guarantee for a snakepit option to get some standard crew infusion, I'd be all over the 6 Renaissance plan. I may have listed out the build plans, but I'll abstain from that vote for now.
The Council is neither all-knowing nor does it have limitless resources... It ordered 4 berths because that is what seemed reasonable at that time but it is a fair question if that still holds true now with things like GBZ (and in fact the general information of just how massive the Cardassians and their allies are) requiring a massive amount in transports etc to maintain what looks to be lengthy combat and mining operations.
And I really doubt we will run out of things to build in auxiliaries shipyards anytime soon considering we are operating at the very bare minimum and looking to continue our highly expansive courser (as well as getting ever more research). Plus the question if we can build freighters and co at normal shipyards is as fair as I know still an unanswered so I find such a definitive statement highly dubious.
Last edited:
Eh, would it that bad if we failed to meet that crew requirement? I mean even if do it seems likely to me that doing so would mean little more than that (fully) staffing the ship/full readiness will be delayed for a bit which isn't exactly the end of the world.
Do you really want to be responsible for tracking that in game? Or would you rather just let @OneirosTheWriter track it and let him tell us when we need to vote on something related to auxiliaries?
Dead serious question. Like, would it make the game more enjoyable for you if we had the responsibility of proactively deciding that there needs to be more auxiliary space and coming to the QM with it instead of waiting for him to come to us?
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
We don't know, and that's the problem. Oneiros hasn't given clear guidance here.
We've previously been warned by the QM that going into resource deficit when building ships will get Council disapproval if it happens more than once in a couple years. If that's the case for crew as well, then it may seem okay at first to be iffy on a single Renaissance. But we're already going into a >1 crew deficit this year, and further crew casualties (like 3 or so) will throw another Renaissance crewing under the bus.
Now, if we can intrepret these builds, such that if there's insufficient crew, they're simply temporarily "mothballed" until crew becomes available with no other penalty, then I'd be all fine with that.
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
We've gotten poked by the council and by our subordinates that we need more logistics capacity a lot. And this was before the GBZ campaign.
It's really not unreasonable to assume that substantially increasing our logistics needs increases the number of berths we'll need to catch up in a reasonable time frame.
If nothing else, we could offer auxiliary berths we currently aren't using to member worlds.
But, considering that we're basically constantly expanding, with new races becoming affiliates and members, new mining colonies being founded, new starbases being built, and so on, I'm pretty sure there's ALWAYS going to be a need for auxiliary vessels like freighters and the like. Not to mention that there's also the possibility of losses due to war, accidents, criminal acts, and the like.
But, considering that we're basically constantly expanding, with new races becoming affiliates and members, new mining colonies being founded, new starbases being built, and so on, I'm pretty sure there's ALWAYS going to be a need for auxiliary vessels like freighters and the like. Not to mention that there's also the possibility of losses due to war, accidents, criminal acts, and the like.
That's not actually answering my question. Do you as a player want to be responsible for making that decision? I personally feel it's too much in the weeds. If there needs to be more auxiliary spaces, I want the QM to come to us with a clear vote to make, and if not I don't want to have to worry about it. I don't want to have to nag him and try to do the equivalent of write-in votes if they aren't on offer as part of the standard options.
Thors_Alumni
Proud member of Thors Class VII from Liberl
- Location
- Liberl Zemuria.
Next snakepit we need to expand the academy and build more shipbuilding berths.
