can someone please explain why losing those mines for 3 years is a bad thing. I was originally going to take that choice but you guys convened me to change my vote. I still think it was the right one but I bowed to the more knowledgeable guys on the thread.
We need sr mines as that has been the resource we are limited by along with officers for crew.

And we are getting a tech this year that gives 2 rp per mining colony and 1 PP per colony so that will really boost our incomes
 
Caldonians 500/500 - Ratification blocked due to ongoing Moratorium
Orions 439/500 + 18 = 457/500
Risa 404/500 + 16 = 420/500
Gaeni 436/500 + 12 = 448
Qloathi 357/500 + 38 = 395/500 + 15 = 410/500
Seyek 312/500 + 12 = 324/500 + 15 + 50 = 389/500

The development faction is going to have a conniption fit when the Moratorium is over, aren't they? We could easily manage to have 6! different affiliates waiting for Ratification when it ends after all.
 
The development faction is going to have a conniption fit when the Moratorium is over, aren't they? We could easily manage to have 6! different affiliates waiting for Ratification when it ends after all.
Hopefully the Council will do a phased entry in an orderly manner. "500 relations" doesn't actually mean anything to the Council, it's just our gamist shorthand for "their legal system is well integrated with ours, they're ready for Federation membership."

can someone please explain why losing those mines for 3 years is a bad thing. I was originally going to take that choice but you guys convened me to change my vote. I still think it was the right one but I bowed to the more knowledgeable guys on the thread.
Because we don't just lose the use of the mines for three years, we lose control of the mines, forever. We not only lose the resource income they provide, we lose the political will and research income they provide with the Colony Cores tech.
 
The development faction is going to have a conniption fit when the Moratorium is over, aren't they? We could easily manage to have 6! different affiliates waiting for Ratification when it ends after all.

If we hold off war with Cardassia long enough, they're going to shit themselves. The security for such an event is going to be rediculous.
 
To be fair, if the Yrillian proposal was limited to just buying ships, I would have been more ambivalent rather than skeptically hopeful. It just wouldn't be a proposal I thought would be worth the scarce Sousa deal.

Well, now with that all in hindsight, knowing how Starfleet heads and all Council factions will have a say on any prospective proposal, does anyone have a good AND sufficiently ambitious idea for a Sousa deal for the next snake pit (or this snake pit in hindsight)?

Well the obvious one would be to try and get a Non Aggression Pact with the Klingons to further isolate ourselves against the possibility of war there and ensue we don't get dragged into yet another conflict. We could perhaps also ask for a general expansion of key industries like the nacelle factors that would have been part of the development deal since as far as I know we have some potential problems there (plus I would really like to get an additionally auxiliary yard). Maybe a deal to encourage Fed member's to expand/explore our southwards borders might not be amiss considering our current focus on the north and the "risk" of us getting cut off by Cardassians and their clients on that front. We might also look into establishing some additional Federation wide agencies to help with our workload - a Federation wide police force (like the FBI) for example could be useful, increase security and encourage some closer cooperation between the various Fed-Council members.

There are also some possibilities in regards of "hidden"/"non-official" projects towarss the Cardassian Clients like making a secret non-aggression pact with Dawiar (or at least establish some secret diplomatic channels) that might be worth looking into if we feel aggressive. And of course we can always go for another, better formulated Yirillia plan is also a possibility since I really would rather not let them join the Cardissian faction if possible...

And then there is the simple stuff like using them to "cheaply" do something like founding satellite campus on several major worlds to get a "massive" boost to our manpower or use them to complete several of the industry projects etc.

Edit:
Since the pacifist currently make up a significant part of the Council we should probably either pick "peaceful" options or be prepared that we will be required to make costly deals like this one...
 
Last edited:
The development faction is going to have a conniption fit when the Moratorium is over, aren't they? We could easily manage to have 6! different affiliates waiting for Ratification when it ends after all.
Yes and our annual roll is currently 2u10+21, increasing to +23 or 24 soon, 3 years of annual rolls plus possible events. Though we are likely to see 2 a year as members to stagger it a bit
 
can someone please explain why losing those mines for 3 years is a bad thing. I was originally going to take that choice but you guys convened me to change my vote. I still think it was the right one but I bowed to the more knowledgeable guys on the thread.

We don't lose the mines for three years we permanently lose any new mining location we find during those three years which means a permanent lose of possible resources that gets exacerbated by the fact that we will soon unlock several technologies that make colonies give us pp and rp (which is I think the real issue for many here since I don't think we will lack in resources anytime soon, especially not if get lucky in the CBZ). It is not the end in the world in my opinion since it would strengthen our members (who as the renaissance shipbuilding wave shows can be quite useful in building up our complete combat power) but it is a price many here are not prepared to pay, especially not for a deal they are already disliking and that costs so much pp...
 
To be fair, if the Yrillian proposal was limited to just buying ships, I would have been more ambivalent rather than skeptically hopeful. It just wouldn't be a proposal I thought would be worth the scarce Sousa deal.

Well, now with that all in hindsight, knowing how Starfleet heads and all Council factions will have a say on any prospective proposal, does anyone have a good AND sufficiently ambitious idea for a Sousa deal for the next snake pit (or this snake pit in hindsight)?

It really depends on what happens between now and then. We have a lot of problems to solve at the moment, and its not clear which ones will still be pressing in a year's time.

To be clear, if I wake up tomorrow and this place is a saltpocalypse of angry posters posting angrily, I will be so utterly unamused it will be hazardous to everyone's account health.

Its okay, I'm finished now. :)
 
I hadn't realized that the Seyek/Fiiral situation was so volatile. It was interesting to get Mrr'shan's take that maybe they should become independent from each other... usually characters are always pro-closer unity.

Credit @Simon_Jester for suggesting that Federation membership would be an outlet for Fiiral independent leanings, since they would have their own Council seat.

As for Sousa deals, I am certainly going to take the lesson to heart and start off by asking myself, "Can I name at least two Council factions that would be pretty happy with this?" before proposing anything.
 
I hadn't realized that the Seyek/Fiiral situation was so volatile. It was interesting to get Mrr'shan's take that maybe they should become independent from each other... usually characters are always pro-closer unity.

Credit @Simon_Jester for suggesting that Federation membership would be an outlet for Fiiral independent leanings, since they would have their own Council seat.

As for Sousa deals, I am certainly going to take the lesson to heart and start off by asking myself, "Can I name at least two Council factions that would be pretty happy with this?" before proposing anything.
What do you think about using a Sousa deal on the Seyek? I know the Pacifists would be all over it, and the expansionists wouldn't mind either.
 
What do you think about using a Sousa deal on the Seyek? I know the Pacifists would be all over it, and the expansionists wouldn't mind either.

To do what, though? I don't feel that I have any genuinely new suggestions, and to quote the relevant parts from the Captain's Log:

I'm getting the distinct feeling that myself and the Diplomatic Service are treading water. Again we have helped the calmer heads in Seyek politics hold the situation in check, but there is only so much we can do from the outside. That this comes at a time when the Seyek integration into the Federation is deepening is a two-edged sword. We have more access to them, but by the same token, we are far more exposed.

EDIT: I don't want to suggest a deal that boils down to "try harder".
 
Development will be opposed, Mercantile won't care, Hawks are possibly very angry at us. Can we bring any of them on-side by modifying the proposal?
 
I've just had a very public debate with a chief anti-Fiiral powerbroker.

Starfleet Academy classes in rhetoric are not popular. But they are worth their weight in gold when uncivil voices call for civil blood on the steps of Council. It's given pause to a few people, and been widely broadcast.

So, Samhaya Mrr'shan just saved the day by giving a dramatic speech? Does that make her Cat-Picard?
 
I've been waiting quite a while to share this.
Seyek ships were inspired by the Stellaris meta months ago, at least as @Iron Wolf described it:
"Stellaris' combat at the time (and still, kinda) basically revolved around getting as many battleships with powerful tachyon lances as powerful and shoving them at the enemy."
So, high firepower.
(Also, Trek-ifying 'tachyon lances' is how we got the photonic lances.)
In retrospect, I do wish I had made the Seyek a bit more science-y, given that they're curious sneks.

The sheet I was given to use to design Seyek ships made them really good at explorer design, so I took advantage.
 
As for Sousa deals, I am certainly going to take the lesson to heart and start off by asking myself, "Can I name at least two Council factions that would be pretty happy with this?" before proposing anything.

I think one of the problems is that the thread is too big for reasoned coordinated action. It sounded like the Yrillian freighter proposal started out smart, but became dumb through the wisdom of the mob.

fasquardon
 
What do you think about using a Sousa deal on the Seyek? I know the Pacifists would be all over it, and the expansionists wouldn't mind either.

Enterprise did already deal with most of the problems there in my opinion and I think that giving the parties time to come to an agreement with each will be more useful than pretty anything we can do, especially since FDS is probably focusing on the job.
 
I'm going to be honest, I miss out voting on a lot of the bigger, more complicated plans (fleet distribution, tech teams, etc.) because I look at all the numbers and factors and my head spins.

Stuff like this vote, or EC Captains, Vice Admirals, other personnel things, those I can grasp pretty well. Stuff like the Red-Yellow-Green Lights for the GBZ, sure.

But stuff that delves too deeply into the crunchiness just...kind of glazes my eyes over.

I love reading and being a part of this Quest but some stuff just kinda flies past me.
 
In terms of future deals, development might be good if we wanted to do an even larger push for redundant critical manufacturing, especially if we carefully targeted where we put new facilities.

Another not listed thing may be 'outposts along critical trade routes', especially if we can stick runabouts. I don't know if that is useful mechanically, but it is at least trying to think Development.
 
can someone please explain why losing those mines for 3 years is a bad thing. I was originally going to take that choice but you guys convened me to change my vote. I still think it was the right one but I bowed to the more knowledgeable guys on the thread.

As said by Simon_Jester, it's not "Loose a mine for 3 years."

It's "During the next 3 years any potential mine location outside of GBZ, is lost forever to Starfleet and assigned instead to the nearest Federation member world directly."

Basically, the member worlds directly benefit from our survey work (which as a principle isn't bad at all as such, strong federation members is stronger starfleet as well), but the only possible new mining sites for us directly within the next 3 YEARS would need to be found from GBZ. For the rest of the new mineral sites, we'd have no say at all on how the resources would be used or even when they would be developed.

It's just that we are short on resources, specially sr, and we have upcoming tech that synergies really well with more mining colonies.
 
Development will be opposed, Mercantile won't care, Hawks are possibly very angry at us. Can we bring any of them on-side by modifying the proposal?
I don't think the Hawks will be angry - that one dude might be horrified we were even considering it, but backing off without losing face means we can pass it off as one of the many ideas that get but turn out infeasible for whatever reason.
 
I think one of the problems is that the thread is too big for reasoned coordinated action. It sounded like the Yrillian freighter proposal started out smart, but became dumb through the wisdom of the mob.

fasquardon

Not really. As far as I remember the basic concept started out with the idea to hire the Yrillians to solve our "perceived" lack of shipping and get them to like us instead of the Cardassians and that never really changed. And that is exactly what this deal would do it just that for a lot of people the price is higher than expected.
 
Back
Top