Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
Forget about the 150pp, the logistic plan would be pretty questionable even if it was completely free. It forces our members not to build ships they want/need, for the "benefit" of not needing to lend out ships they mostly don't currently need. I don't think I'd vote for it even at 0pp.
 
AlphaDelta said:
We will end up revisiting this in ten years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's still 10 in-game years and 5-8 real-life months were we don't have to deal with this shit or have arguments about it.

So it still sound like a good idea unless you have a permanent solution.

Void Stalker said:
We have been told that if we don't agree that aux yards will show up at the next snakepit. I would prefer an expansion of aux berths as opposed to using member berths
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

AlphaDelta, you should've used that as you're argument.
 
Void Stalker said:
We have been told that if we don't agree that aux yards will show up at the next snakepit. I would prefer an expansion of aux berths as opposed to using member berths
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I plan to suggest that we make maximum use of that option to get as many Aux yards as we can. There are at least three locations where we can put them to maximum use.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I can actually sympathize with the Developmercantile point of view on this. Who would run the peacekeepers except Starfleet? Without Starfleet, they'd have no way to get where they need to be and very limited resources for accomplishing their tasks.

It would be fair to categorize these Federation peacekeepers, much like the old pre-WWI British Army, as "a projectile to be fired by the Navy." As such, folding them into the Starfleet seems a reasonable course of action, IF the Federation is to have them at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh, the same way existing peacekeeping forces get to their deployments (plus transport ships are a thing). And the federation can easily assign them the necessary resources (which it would have to do anyhow since otherwise the rest of Starfleet had a problem). Or at least make them something of an auxiliary command.

And the pre-WW1 British Army was never part of the navy or unde rits control/command structure....

pbluekan said:
Frankly, I'm surprised this issue came up, because, aside from the Syndicate eradication, when have we needed peacekeepers?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There have also been a few issues with other problematic colonies earlier in the quest.
 
IMO:
Member berths that are free anyway > general purpose SF berths > auxiliary berths >>> twisting the arm of members to free up their berths for us
 
Erandil said:
Budget restrictions of the auxiliary department? Though I admit that is a somewhat flimsy reason since I see no reason why a campaign for a new shipyard wouldn't include the raising of additional money...


And in regards to the plans. I do agree that the Federation could use such a central peacekeeping force but by god why does it have to be such a direct part of Starfleet? Just who in the world looked at Starfleet and though - yeah let's give them even more responsibilities, power and duties? Meanwhile I am mostly ambivalent about the transport plan - having more ships would be nice but not only do I feel like this plan ignores the rest of our auxiliary ship that also need expansion but I also don't really like supporting the development faction over the expansionist, especially when expanding the Federation offers so many benefits.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it would be an interesting idea to have a small peacekeeping force, at the moment we depend on member states and while that is good, the thing is that they all have their own specialties, shortcomings and what not, when/if we do need to deploy forces (and this could go from disaster relief to ground control, to facility assaults, to what not) it would be very interesting to have a small force that can serve as generalists, and as a sort of joint training/command for all forces of the member states.
That said, I don't think the force needs to be very large, but it could also serve as cadre for a federal force if we feel the need to.

While a lot of people moan about whether or not this is starfleet in feel... starfleet decides that, do not let the show rule the story, otherwise we'd have to do the idiocy of all officer force by TNG...


pbluekan said:
The Federation already has them from member worlds. We just don't need them as a distinct organization under the purview of Starfleet. Having them as memberworld assets we can call up in times of need is just fine.

Frankly, I'm surprised this issue came up, because, aside from the Syndicate eradication, when have we needed peacekeepers?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

but member fores might not be available as fast or at our discretion, not to mention that having a joint command would, at the very least, by dead useful, and probably cost us 0pp to use (their casualties, otoh...)

Mind you, I can see why people are against a proposal signed by the president, this president at least, but I'd really want to see the details of the proposal and see if we can either create a counter proposal or tinker it to both water down the development gains and favoring other parties...

Nervos Belli said:
We used MACO's when we were briefly occupying some Licori colonies. And they might have become necessary with the Caldonians or Fiiral if things had gone differently.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

and it is better to have them and not need em than to need em and not have them
 
Joshrand1982 said:
I plan to suggest that we make maximum use of that option to get as many Aux yards as we can. There are at least three locations where we can put them to maximum use.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why would you want to vote for expensive useless monuments to hubris, that will build one wave of ships and then sit empty, alone, and unlit and unloved... a monument to hubris and weakness and obsession?

My suspicion is that if we reject the deal, the consequence is that things that require more transport infrastructure, mainly mining and research colonies, will be more expensive and we'll build less of them.
 
pheonix89 said:
Unless the restrictions are in the federation charter that's a cost, not something that stops us.

We're playing as Commander, Starfleet. We can reallocate funds if needed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am pretty sure that in RL the army and Co can't simply reallocate funds willy-nilly between its projects/departments so I would be a bit surprised if Starfleet and its commander could do that. Though as I said I see nothing that would stop such a reallocation/addtional funds being part of theoretical auxiliary expansion project in the Snake-Pit.
 
Briefvoice said:
Why would you want to vote for expensive useless monuments to hubris, that will build one wave of ships and then sit empty, alone, and unlit and unloved... a monument to hubris and weakness and obsession?

My suspicion is that if we reject the deal, the consequence is that things that require more transport infrastructure, mainly mining and research colonies, will be more expensive and we'll build less of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Um I am not sure I understand your point Briefvoice? Wouldn't the aux yards continue building Freighters and Cargo ships after they launch their first wave? Because I thought the Yards would continually build the Ships as our transport needs grow

Edit: I was referring to the Next Snakepit since Oneiros said that we was going to put the option to build more of the Aux Shipyards. I was suggesting we would Build three Aux yards at the locations where they can best be used.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
IMO:
Member berths that are free anyway > general purpose SF berths > auxiliary berths >>> twisting the arm of members to free up their berths for us
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With the time needed for builds and continued federation expansion auxiliary command could probably make use of 8 berths full time. My preference would be to expand the current facility by another 4 berths as that should allow building of freight ships along with hopsital, engineering and colony ships.
 
Simon_Jester said:
If it weren't such a rush-job it wouldn't be so bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed. Here is an example of what we could do with existing snakepit options for a similar result:

[] Initiative 3
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 11pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 16pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 21pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 14pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 19pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 24pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Allocation for an Excelsior's resources, one-off-infusion of an Excelsior's cost, 40pp
-[] Request Allocation for an Excelsior's resources, one-off-infusion of an Excelsior's cost, 40pp

That gives three 2mt berths, three 1mt berths, and hopefully enough resources to build all the needed cargo ships/super freighters. It also future proofs Starfleet for our continuing expansion. All for a cost of 185pp. If we assume that Starfleet Logistics Command has the resources to pay for all the ships themselves, and thus makes the resource requests superfluous, we can get that up to 4x2mt + 4x1mt for just 160pp.

Even if we wanted to make it a real pork barrel project by spreading around the berths, and thus missing the benefits of HIP, we get:

[] Initiative 4
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 11pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 14pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of Ana Font Shipyard, 14pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of Lor'Vela Orbital Construction Facility, 14pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 16pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of 40 Eridani A Shipyards, 18pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 19pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of Ana Font Shipyard, 19pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of Lor'Vela Orbital Construction Facility, 19pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 21pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]

Which gives 3x2mt + 7x1mt berths for 165pp. So we've got lots of pork but along with it we get actual future proofing instead of it being a one off patch. If I included the two resource injections it would go to 2x2mt + 5x1mt for 186pp which is probably worse then Initiative 3 for handling our cargo supply but still better then the proposed deal.
 
At this point, I'm more than a little tempted to avoid Ferasa as a location for SF infrastructure if we can avoid it.
UberJJK said:
[] Initiative 4
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TLDR: 3x UP Cruiser berths, 2x each of SFFY, Ana Font, Lor'Vela, and 1x 40 Eridani A. Zero for Ferasa.

-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 11pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 16pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request Cruiser berth at Utopia Planitia, 21pp (6 turns, gain new 2m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]

-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 14pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of San Francisco Fleet Yards, 19pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]

-[] Request development of Ana Font Shipyard, 14pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of Ana Font Shipyard, 19pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]

-[] Request development of Lor'Vela Orbital Construction Facility, 14pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
-[] Request development of Lor'Vela Orbital Construction Facility, 19pp (4 turns, gain 1 new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]

-[] Request development of 40 Eridani A Shipyards, 18pp (4 turns, gain new 1m t berth) [Can take multiple times, +5pp per subsequent build]
 
UberJJK said:
Indeed. Here is an example of what we could do with existing snakepit options for a similar result:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why would you avoid one of the most efficient options?
  • Request development of Utopia Planitia, 28pp, (4 turns, gain 1 3mt, 1 1mt berth)
The cost of this option does not increase after being taken (not only does it not list a cost increase, the cost remained unchanged the two times we took it). At worst it might be limited to once per year, but that just means we should include it in every larger shipyard expansion/construction drive.
 
I wound not be surprised to see New aux yards (40pp) needing extra budget to run New aux yards (30pp, may not take at same time as a normal starfleet budget request).

That is, a higher start cost instead of the smaller per year over several years.
 
Just to ask the question, but would either/both of these options be for the good of the federation (NOT Starfleet, but the people we defend), regardless of the politics involved?
 
Nix said:
Why would you avoid one of the most efficient options?
  • Request development of Utopia Planitia, 28pp, (4 turns, gain 1 3mt, 1 1mt berth)
The cost of this option does not increase after being taken (not only does it not list a cost increase, the cost remained unchanged the two times we took it). At worst it might be limited to once per year, but that just means we should include it in every larger shipyard expansion/construction drive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pork barrel?

That's how N'Ger is thinking.

HearthBorn said:
Just to ask the question, but would either/both of these options be for the good of the federation (NOT Starfleet, but the people we defend), regardless of the politics involved?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First? Possibly.

Second? No.

A peacekeeper force would be good, but I'm not willing to sacrifice that much, not to mention the political consequences.

Meanwhile, while logistics is good, it's a purely political move, and inefficient as a result. See: All of those UP expansions we could get instead, auxiliary berths and/or other shiny projects.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top