To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

[lbmaian]

Caitian woes, like Orion woes, are unrelated to this system and are closer to a narrative basis.

Strain is there mostly as a warning that you have very little room for error. A full mobilisation will probably leave you well short of hulls, you won't be able to pad out your engineering teams to run construction efficiently, and the loss of even a few ships to wolf packs could leave you with income shortfalls. The key part of the Amarki situation you need to remember is that this is them at partial Mobilisation.

Click to shrink...

I was about to remark on this earlier, but the Amarki income jump due to the Syndicate bombing between 2312 to 2313 and the fact that it stayed there led me to believe that the Amarki were already at the limited mobilization level (1.5x income). When I saw the 2315 numbers, my first thought was that they increased to wartime mobilization level (2x income). But looking more closely, the 2315 incomes are exactly 1.5x the 2314 ones, which indicates that despite that huge 2312 to 2313 jump, that mobilization level jump somehow stabilized into their peacetime normal within two years, and now they're a limited mobilization. Hot damn.

2311: Amarki - 90 - 65 - 2 - 2.5 - 1.5
2312: Amarki - 90 - 65 - 2 - 2.5 - 1.5
2313: Amarki - 145 - 115 - 3 - 5.5 - 3.5
2314: Amarki - 155 - 125 - 3.5 - 6 - 4
2315: Amarki - 230 - 190 - 5.25 - 9 - 6

Anyway, back to the main point: Are you saying that the reason that they're using so many cargo ships as to be at mild small cargo strain is because they're mobilizing? Or do you mean that the just-increased mobilization is expected to increase their cargo strain further?

Wondered how long it would take before someone spotted that one.

I told people high Combat was getting a bit of a boost. When the Enterprise comes head hunting, she can really make a mess.

Click to shrink...

At first, I thought this was a case of shield burn-through then a fluke of warp core damage, which then caused the destruction. But nope, that's just raw damage.

Well, it does clarify how critical hits work to some extent:
- They're applied to hitpower itself, not between hitpower and damage.
- Assuming they're a multiplier, the lower bound of the multiplier is 35.33 (hitpower) / 9 (the listed combat power of the Enterprise in the log), which is just shy of 4x.

Looking at more examples, I can see that critical hits don't imply sub-system damage, nor vice versa. They could still be correlated though - can't tell.

There are handful of sub-system damage categories... will list them out in an edit.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Quadruple damage on critical hits seems a bit excessive for this combat engine, honestly. One of the big advantages of computer resolution of battles is that if something takes a hundred turns to resolve that's okay; it's not a reason to panic. It's okay if the average ship takes 20-30 shots from a peer-competitor opponent to go down.

The combination of shield burnthrough (as in, specifically, the ability to shoot through shields like they weren't there) AND subsystem damage AND critical hits being a possibility that can massively amplify total damage on a successful hit... That's a combination that very very much nerfs shields, and while I accept that they were overpowered before we may have just swung in the opposite direction.

Also, looking at the "damage dealt" by ship, there's a lot of variability even among ships in the same class. Does anyone know why that is? I get why a cruiser that participates in multiple phases of a battle might manage more raw damage output than an explorer that only participates in one, for instance- but why do we get one frigate doing like 40 damage while another does like 10?

I'd delve through the logs but I'm being kept busy at irregular intervals, plus I always seem to miss things in this sort of analysis.

Now there's a Vulcan with ambitions!

Click to shrink...

USS Sarek:

"It is my avowed belief that a suitably prepared, competent ship with well-operated phaser banks and a skillful geology department can accomplish anything."

 

[OneirosTheWriter]

Looking at more examples, I can see that critical hits don't imply sub-system damage, nor vice versa. They could still be correlated though - can't tell.

Click to shrink...

There's a correlation in that critical hits grossly jump the damage being dealt. The damage inflicted in a given hit is plugged into the function that checks for sub-system damage. So a really big hit runs a really high chance of making something break.

At a small chance that thing is basically a magazine hit, and at an even smaller chance, there's warp core damage, forcing either a breach or an ejection.

 

[MTB]

There's a correlation in that critical hits grossly jump the damage being dealt. The damage inflicted in a given hit is plugged into the function that checks for sub-system damage. So a really big hit runs a really high chance of making something break.

At a small chance that thing is basically a magazine hit, and at an even smaller chance, there's warp core damage, forcing either a breach or an ejection.

Click to shrink...

How deadly will that make Borg cubes?

 

[Nervos Belli]

I will laugh very hard if USS Hood gets her warp core breached in the first five minutes of combat.

 

[lbmaian]

Sub-system damage examples:

Turn 136 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship USS Lexington
Damage roll - Hitpower 7.10 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Lexington reduced to 5.64 Hp
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/1/0 out of 3/4/4
Turn 136 - The USS Lexington has had to eject its warp core!
The USS Lexington has suffered sub-system damage: Power knocked out! 9999 turns to repair.

Turn 182 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship UES Calgary
Damage roll - Hitpower 7.25 vs Shields 0.61
Ship UES Calgary Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship UES Calgary has lost shields.
Ship UES Calgary reduced to 9.57 Hp
The UES Calgary has suffered sub-system damage: Reaction knocked out! 18 turns to repair.

Click to shrink...

Turn 49 - Ship USS Lexington is firing upon Ship USS Hawking
Turn 49 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Lexington on USS Hawking
Damage roll - Hitpower 25.00 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Hawking reduced to 0 Hp!
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/0/1 out of 1/1/4
The USS Hawking has suffered sub-system damage: Warp knocked out! 35 turns to repair.
Turn 49 - The USS Hawking has been destroyed! Destroyed by USS Lexington

Turn 165 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship UES Liberty
Damage roll - Hitpower 2.82 vs Shields 0.00
Ship UES Liberty reduced to 32.27 Hp
The UES Liberty has suffered sub-system damage: Sensors knocked out! 6 turns to repair.

Turn 185 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Shanghai
Turn 185 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Sarek on USS Shanghai
Damage roll - Hitpower 19.34 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Shanghai reduced to 0 Hp!
The USS Shanghai has suffered sub-system damage: Weapons knocked out! 2 turns to repair.
Turn 185 - The USS Shanghai has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by USS Sarek

Click to shrink...

Turn 110 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Shanghai
Damage roll - Hitpower 6.58 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Shanghai reduced to 0 Hp!
Ship 1 has taken casualties: 1/0/0 out of 1/2/1
The USS Shanghai has suffered sub-system damage: Weapons knocked out! 18 turns to repair.
The USS Shanghai has been disabled.

Turn 149 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Hood
Turn 149 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Sarek on USS Hood
Damage roll - Hitpower 18.75 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Hood reduced to 6.05 Hp
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/1/0 out of 3/4/4
The USS Hood has suffered sub-system damage: Shield knocked out! 10 turns to repair.

Turn 158 - Ship USS Excelsior is firing upon Ship USS Hood
Turn 158 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Excelsior on USS Hood
Damage roll - Hitpower 28.52 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Hood reduced to 0 Hp!
Ship 1 has taken casualties: 1/1/0 out of 3/4/4
The USS Hood has suffered sub-system damage: Weapons knocked out! 10 turns to repair.
Turn 158 - The USS Hood has been destroyed! Destroyed by USS Excelsior

Turn 164 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship UES Calgary
Damage roll - Hitpower 8.56 vs Shields 6.75
Ship UES Calgary Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship UES Calgary has lost shields.
Ship UES Calgary reduced to 18.02 Hp
The UES Calgary has suffered sub-system damage: Warp knocked out! 20 turns to repair.

Click to shrink...

Turn 153 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Shanghai
Damage roll - Hitpower 5.29 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Shanghai reduced to 11.19 Hp
The USS Shanghai has suffered sub-system damage: Reaction knocked out! 18 turns to repair.

Click to shrink...

So sub-system damage applies to a component and knocks it out for a set amount of turns, including indefinitely (9999). Mentioned sub-system types so far:
- Power
- Reaction
- Warp
- Sensors
- Weapons
- Shield

Warp Core Breach looks unrelated (or not strongly correlated) to both critical hits and sub-system damage:

Turn 164 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Shanghai
Damage roll - Hitpower 1.66 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Shanghai reduced to 8.08 Hp
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/1/0 out of 1/2/1
Turn 164 - Ship USS Shanghai destroyed by secondary damage causing a warp core breach.
Turn 164 - The USS Shanghai has been destroyed! Destroyed by USS Sarek

Turn 204 - Ship UES Liberty is firing upon Ship UES Calgary
Damage roll - Hitpower 5.98 vs Shields 0.00
Ship UES Calgary reduced to 0 Hp!
Turn 204 - The UES Calgary has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by UES Liberty

Click to shrink...

Turn 58 - Ship USS Hood is firing upon Ship USS Torbriel
Damage roll - Hitpower 4.35 vs Shields 4.38
Ship USS Torbriel Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship USS Torbriel has lost shields.
Damage has penetrated Shields, residual power 4.35
Ship USS Torbriel reduced to 5.65 Hp by burn-through
Turn 58 - Ship USS Torbriel destroyed by secondary damage causing a warp core breach.
Turn 58 - The USS Torbriel has been destroyed! Destroyed by USS Hood

Turn 128 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Hood
Turn 128 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Sarek on USS Hood
Damage roll - Hitpower 31.08 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Hood reduced to 0 Hp!
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/1/0 out of 3/4/4
Turn 128 - The USS Hood has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by USS Sarek

Turn 185 - Ship USS Sarek is firing upon Ship USS Shanghai
Turn 185 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Sarek on USS Shanghai
Damage roll - Hitpower 19.34 vs Shields 0.00
Ship USS Shanghai reduced to 0 Hp!
The USS Shanghai has suffered sub-system damage: Weapons knocked out! 2 turns to repair.
Turn 185 - The USS Shanghai has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by USS Sarek

Click to shrink...

Turn 124 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship UES Calgary
Turn 124 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Enterprise on UES Calgary
Damage roll - Hitpower 35.33 vs Shields 25.92
Ship UES Calgary Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship UES Calgary has lost shields.
Ship UES Calgary reduced to 10.59 Hp
Turn 124 - Ship UES Calgary has suffered magazine antimatter containment failure! Suffers 30 hp damage.
Ship 1 has taken casualties: 1/0/0 out of 1/2/1
Turn 124 - The UES Calgary has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by USS Enterprise
The UES Calgary has been disabled.

Click to shrink...

Notably, unlike in the first and maybe second version of the combat engine, Warp Core Breach is possible even when HP is not 0.

Both subsystem damage and warp core breach seem to happen more often with lower HP, although there is an example where subsystem damage occurred at around 80% hull integrity (UES Liberty).


And finally the last new damage case, which might just be a type of sub-system damage - AM containment failure:

Turn 51 - Ship USS Winterwind is firing upon Ship USS Torbriel
Damage roll - Hitpower 2.06 vs Shields 8.47
Ship USS Torbriel Shields reduced to 6.37
Damage has penetrated Shields, residual power 1.41
Ship USS Torbriel reduced to 8.59 Hp by burn-through
Turn 51 - Ship USS Torbriel has suffered magazine antimatter containment failure! Suffers 10 hp damage.
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/0/1 out of 1/1/4
Turn 51 - The USS Torbriel has been destroyed! Destroyed by USS Winterwind
Turn 51 - The USS Torbriel has been destroyed! Destroyed by USS Winterwind

Turn 124 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship UES Calgary
Turn 124 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Enterprise on UES Calgary
Damage roll - Hitpower 35.33 vs Shields 25.92
Ship UES Calgary Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship UES Calgary has lost shields.
Ship UES Calgary reduced to 10.59 Hp
Turn 124 - Ship UES Calgary has suffered magazine antimatter containment failure! Suffers 30 hp damage.
Ship 1 has taken casualties: 1/0/0 out of 1/2/1
Turn 124 - The UES Calgary has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by USS Enterprise
The UES Calgary has been disabled.

Click to shrink...

This is rare and also seems correlated with lower hull. It differs from the others in that instead of disabling some sub-system or causing the ship to explode, it just deals straight HP damage...which admittedly destroyed the ship anyway in these cases.


...

There's a correlation in that critical hits grossly jump the damage being dealt. The damage inflicted in a given hit is plugged into the function that checks for sub-system damage. So a really big hit runs a really high chance of making something break.

At a small chance that thing is basically a magazine hit, and at an even smaller chance, there's warp core damage, forcing either a breach or an ejection.

Click to shrink...

Oh, so it's more correlated with damage magnitude rather than hull integrity (% max hull)? Or both?

 

[OneirosTheWriter]

Oh, so it's more correlated with damage magnitude rather than hull integrity (% max hull)? Or both?

Click to shrink...

Slightly sideways - it's not the current HP level, but modified by the base Hull stat - higher the hull stat, the more resistant to sub-system damage, and the better your repair times.

So frigates are moving from being kings of damage dealing efficiency to slightly less dangerous yet crucial for their role.

That said, I've done this with Apiata Stingers and can confirm they are still absolutely savage.

 

[lbmaian]

Slightly sideways - it's not the current HP level, but modified by the base Hull stat - higher the hull stat, the more resistant to sub-system damage, and the better your repair times.

Click to shrink...

So it's more of an opposed roll of sorts between damage magnitude and hull stat.

Higher hull stat resulting in better repair times doesn't make sense...unless it's about rate of hull repair rather than absolute times (otherwise, H4 Excelsiors would be repaired faster than H1 Oberths ) - that make sense.

That said, I've done this with Apiata Stingers and can confirm they are still absolutely savage.

Click to shrink...

I suppose they live to their namesake then? Massive damage at massive self-risk (or for bees, death)? In the older combat system, they were incredibly potent at the beginning at battles, but they lost steam earlier than, say, Miranda-As in large-scale battles. I liked that, and hope that remains the case.

 

[Briefvoice]

So it's more of an opposed roll of sorts between damage magnitude and hull stat.

Higher hull stat resulting in better repair times doesn't make sense...unless it's about rate of hull repair rather than absolute times (otherwise, H4 Excelsiors would be repaired faster than H1 Oberths ) - that make sense.

Click to shrink...

Repair during battle (getting systems online for a short while) versus long term repair. It makes perfect sense to me that a high-Hull ship has a lot of redundant systems and reinforcements where it's hard to knock a sub-system out, and if you do then getting any of the back-ups online will be sufficient to get it running again. So battlefield repair is easy. On the other hand, take it back to spacedock for a real repair and there are so many individual things that have to be fixed, tested, or replaced.

 

[lbmaian]

Repair during battle (getting systems online for a short while) versus long term repair. It makes perfect sense to me that a high-Hull ship has a lot of redundant systems and reinforcements where it's hard to knock a sub-system out, and if you do then getting any of the back-ups online will be sufficient to get it running again. So battlefield repair is easy. On the other hand, take it back to spacedock for a real repair and there are so many individual things that have to be fixed, tested, or replaced.

Click to shrink...

Ah right, overloading terms again ><

Thought he was talking about the current repairing mechanic that we've been panicking so much about.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

Spoiler: Same Reaction as last Year

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)
[X][PRIORITY] Change nothing [Weighted 1.5x]


Pretty sure these are all the same as Briefvoice but they all look good, especially Caitians in the GBZ and the wonderful Vulcan Constie refit.

e: Good point made on cargo...

 

[aeqnai]

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)
[X][PRIORITY] Amarkian should change mid-term priority to focus more on cargo shipping.

Yep. Cats in Gabriel and garrison Constie that gives us an excuse to not scrap the whole ship class the moment we can afford to? Count me in.

 

[Simon_Jester]

How deadly will that make Borg cubes?

Click to shrink...

Honestly, we've gone through three re-designs of the combat engine in the past fifteen years of gameplay alone. By the time we see the Borg... who knows?

 

[Mr Tebbs]

[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)

 

[Theunderbolt]

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)
[X][PRIORITY] Amarkian should change mid-term priority to focus more on cargo shipping.

 

[MS-21H 'Hawke']

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)
[X][PRIORITY] Amarkian should change mid-term priority to focus more on cargo shipping.

 

[lbmaian]

So I have a couple conflicting thoughts about this Riala-A vs cargo ships thing:

1) We have little idea what the costs of building cargo ships are. The costs are hidden from us - auxiliary costs aren't subtracted from the listed MWCO resources or crew at all, and the only thing they "cost" is berth space.

For all we know, asking the Amarkians to build more cargo ships wouldn't preclude building a Riala-A at 2317 anyway, because they should be using separate berth - it's a waste to use a 2.5mt or 3mt on building auxiliary ships over 2 years. Instead, they might delay a Brieca build or change one of their planned freighter builds into a cargo ship build. So in effect, if we request them to change their mid-term priority to increase cargo shipping, they could be able to keep their existing mid-term priority of the Riala-A '17 too.

2) HOWEVER, I also feel there might be some push-back, because this request could be construed as hypocritical and self-serving of Starfleet, which is already in a deep hole in cargo capacity and is relying on member fleets like the ACF to fill that hole.

And a push-back or at least the Amarkians ignoring such a request wouldn't be unprecedented - remember how Starfleet told them to build the Renaissance (note: we actually didn't have a choice here as both available vote options at the time told the Amarki this), and they ended up doubling down on the Hebrinda-A instead? While I don't think they would balk at this type of request, since pride isn't really on the line here, they could understandably be annoyed.

3) I'm still not sure if they need to an explicit request to build more cargo ships, when they already seem to be planning to rush build them.

There's also the fact that their logistics aren't that strained (just 55% of small cargo capacity, and much lower usage of bulk cargo capacity).

@Briefvoice for ease of reference, on both the individual page and the member page it has total cargo capacity.
To Boldly Go Civilian
To Boldly Go Members

Click to shrink...

While useful, this isn't as relevant to the current discussion of whether members, Amarki specifically, are having logistics strain. The logistics network update last year shows us how many cargo ships and freighters are in use. You can see an Amarki example of how I think logistics strain is computed - notably, it's calculated separately for small cargo and bulk cargo, and the greater of two is the logistics strain.

 

[Gnarker]

@OneirosTheWriter, presumably there will be techs that inluence crits and subsystem damage? Boosts under weapons and sensors (and ship class intel reports, maybe?), defenses under hull research? Will the science stat interface with this? Will it be possible to intentionally target subsystems in the future, such as Warp Drives to preempt a retreat or shields on shield-heavy designs?
Because a critmaster Starfleet that focuses on in-depth understanding of their enemies' weakpoints before targeting them with devastating precision while putting every care possible into keeping their own hulls and crew intact, and winning with that strategy, is just incredibly thematic. Versus, for example the Cardassians, focusing on simple raw firepower and numbers with bringing the ships and men home alive being a lower priority to getting the job done.

Though on the other hand, stacking even more crit-resistance on high-hull Explorers to force an enemy to batter them down the slow way, even more crit chance on their already high firepower, and further boost that with their sensor suite may become somewhat unbalanced.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

Turn 105 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship USS Lexington
Turn 105 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Enterprise on USS Lexington
Damage roll - Hitpower 27.92 vs Shields 29.03
Ship USS Lexington Shields reduced to 1.11

Click to shrink...

Turn 124 - Ship USS Enterprise is firing upon Ship UES Calgary
Turn 124 - Critical Hit! Ship USS Enterprise on UES Calgary
Damage roll - Hitpower 35.33 vs Shields 25.92
Ship UES Calgary Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship UES Calgary has lost shields.
Ship UES Calgary reduced to 10.59 Hp
Turn 124 - Ship UES Calgary has suffered magazine antimatter containment failure! Suffers 30 hp damage.
Ship 1 has taken casualties: 1/0/0 out of 1/2/1
Turn 124 - The UES Calgary has suffered a Warp Core Breach, all hands lost! Destroyed by USS Enterprise
The UES Calgary has been disabled.
Fleet Task Force 1 is now in retreat due to Ship Loss!

Click to shrink...

O_O

Looking at the damage log the Enterprise basically single-handedly won that simulation.


So I'm curious, how are crits determined, is it pure randomness or do ship-based factors affect them?

e: Also @OneirosTheWriter I notice that ships are now removed from the mid-fight fleet breakdowns as they are disabled or destroyed or retreat and that there is no end-of-combat fleet breakdown. That means that later mid-fight breakdowns quickly become useless because they no longer show accurate totals.

 

[lbmaian]

Comments on the update itself:

So far the tailward members are not yet pulling their full economic mobilisation despite the war,

Click to shrink...

And they shouldn't.

Further spinward, during the year the Amarkians apparently declared that they are not content to cede the title of strongest member fleet to the Apiatan, and have actually instituted a major economic mobilisation to make good the gap. This quarter has seen them lay down the frames for both a Hebrinda-A and a new Brieca, while setting aside resources to make good on their plans to lay down a new Riala-A starting 2317.

Click to shrink...

So as I mentioned earlier, I'm surprised they aren't already at the equivalent of limited mobilization after the Syndicate bombing. Really impressive how the Amarki have grown.

Current Priorities
...

Click to shrink...

Changes from the 2314.Q1 MWCO:

Vulcan: Mid-term "Build-up D" changed to "2315 Recruiting Drive"
- in the 2314 MWCO some of us voted for changing this nonsensical to priority to increase budget, but given their intent to build Constellation-Ps which are cheap on resources and expensive on crew, this makes sense

Human: Mid-term "Join GBZ" changed to nothing
- for obvious reasons

Caitian: Mid-term "Excelsior (Underway)" changed to nothing
- because it completed

Apiata: Short-term "2nd Queenship (U'way)" changed to "GBZ"
- because it completed, and further GBZ focus is great for us

Indorian: Mid-term "Build Def Ship" changed to "Fed Tech Refits"
- because they're wanting to learn about Rennie tech, although interestingly this doesn't necessarily mean they're full-scale adopting our designs

Incomes
Andor - 90 - 55 - 1.2 - 2 - 2
Vulcan - 55 - 45 - 1.35 - 2.35 - 2
Tellarites - 120 - 65 - 1.8 - 2.4 - 2.4
Humans - 140 - 75 - 2.5 - 2.75 - 2.75
Amarki - 230 - 190 - 5.25 - 9 - 6
Betazoids - 45 - 45 - 1.45 - 1.8 - 1.45
Caitian - 75 - 75 - 1.5 - 1.5 - 0.8
Rigel - 80 - 50 - 1.75 - 4.25 - 3.75
Apiata - 165 - 115 - 0.5 - 8 - 3
Indoria - 75 - 45 - 1.25 - 2 - 1.25

Click to shrink...

Changes from the 2314.Q1 MWCO report:
Andorian: +15br
Vulcan: pacifist->peacetime mobilization: x/0.75 rounded
Tellarite: peacetime->early mobilization: x*1.25 rounded
Human: peacetime->early mobilization: x*1.25 rounded
Amarki: peacetime->limited mobilization: x*1.5 rounded
Betazoid: pacifist->peacetime mobilization: x/0.75 rounded
Caitian: no change
Rigellian: no change
Apiata: +10br +10sr
Indorian: +15br

Most income increases due to increased mobilization. I suspect that Rigel will be moving from peacetime to early mobilization soonish.

GBZ is probably helping fuel that Apiata budget increase. Dunno why Andor or Indoria had such a large BR increase.

Vulcan High Command would like to lay down a new Constellation-class cruiser, built to their suggested support refit. To carry this out, they will require support from Starfleet assets. However, in twelve months time the refit will be available to us.
[ ][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[ ][VHC] No support

Click to shrink...

So apart from the obvious "yes Constellation Pacifist refit!", a couple points:

1) Is this really called the Constellation-P? Totally bypassing the standard A,B,etc. suffix pattern?

2) If this really means we won't have to pay an pp to start this design, then even with the 15pp that's being spent for the Cats and Caldonians, we're saving 3pp.

3) If the refit project starts right now, the very start of this quarter, then we can start Constellation refits starting 2316.Q1. Probably not that relevant for us, but it could be relevant for our member fleets that have free berths to refit their Constellations ASAP.

A continuing industrial and productivity downturn in Ferasa and Merfara has left the Caitian government wishing the impose further draw downs on the budget of the Caitian Grand Fleet. Their Admirals, however, feel that if Starfleet were to request Caitian involvement in the Gabriel, or in the Tailward Theatre it will spark new investment.
[ ][CATS] Push for the LBZ Involvement (-10pp, tie down 10 mobilisation points next month)
[ ][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[ ][CATS] Decline

Click to shrink...

All the people talking about how great the GBZ yellow-lighting would be for the Caitians... Mercantalism is GREAT!

---

Vote:

Abstaining on PRIORITY vote for reasons given in previous post.

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)

 

[JesseJ]

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] Endorse the tech transfer (-5pp)

I'm not certain enough of what to change for the priorities but I'm not going to vote none because of the vote weighting.

As to giving the Caledonians access to the Renaissance I think this would be done as an exception to the rules of "Only Fed members get Fed ships" because of the special circumstances they're in. Namely that:

1. They are at 500 relations and only the Development moratorium on new members has kept them from joining (assuming their political problems aren't enough of a barrier).
2. They are on the Klingon border and very close to the Romulan border and that war could start anytime in the next few years (or tomorrow, we don't know)
3. Pretty much all territory around them is claimed by us or the Klingons so if they want to expand they'll need to join in the GBZ and they'll need some strong ships for that.

 

[AlphaDelta]

[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][PRIORITY] Amarkian should change mid-term priority to focus more on cargo shipping.

Pretty much the status quo. Nothing special. I'm abstaining from anything that I don't have the time to be informed on or don't have preexisting opinions from previous discussion on.

[X][REN] Abstain
[X][TSF] Abstain
[X][AG] Abstain

I might post a note dump for feedback later, if I get around to cleaning my notes up.

 

[Questara]

[X][TSF] 1 Renaissance
[X][AG] Leave open for repairs
[X][VHC] Constellation-P Refit support (-15rp)
[X][CATS] Push for GBZ yellow-light (-10pp)
[X][REN] deny
[X][PRIORITY] Amarkian should change mid-term priority to focus more on cargo shipping

 

[pheonix89]

[X] Briefvoice

 

[Goat]

I'm not sure the Vulcan's are being logical. I suspect they are letting emotions get in the way:

Vulcan - 85 - 75 - 0 - 0.6 - 0 *Preparing for recruitment drive

Click to shrink...

They have almost no crew available

Vulcan High Command would like to lay down a new Constellation-class cruiser, built to their suggested support refit. To carry this out, they will require support from Starfleet assets. However, in twelve months time the refit will be available to us.

Click to shrink...

Yet they what to build the most crew inefficient cruiser design in the entire Federation.