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
Nix said:
Because it hasn't been discussed: We are going to request the sweeping tactical review, just not this year, right? It would make sense to request it at least a year before we are starting our next design project, which looks like it will be 2319 at the earliest, with 2323 being a sweet spot. So we probably should get it 2322 at the latest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just out of curiosity, which roles do you think need to be updated with that option? Are you hoping that it would allow us to get around the +2 Militarization from updating the Combat Frigate requirement via the Tactical Ops vote?
 
Vote Tally : Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 2369 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 59230-59485]
##### NetTally 1.9.9

Task: TECH

[X][TECH] Inid Uttar Institute (Sk 3, Sensors / Propulsion)
No. of Votes: 25
Briefvoice
Aeondrac
aledeth
Chaos Blade
Derek58
Gear
Gingganz
HearthBorn
Iron Wolf
Joshrand1982
Jrin
KnightDisciple
LaggPlaguedDuke
lbmaian
Muramasa
NHO
Nix
pbluekan
pheonix89
SynchronizedWritersBlock
Thebigpieman
tryrar
TyrialFrost
UberJJK
Void Stalker

[X][TECH] Henn-Makad Engineering Institute (Sk 3, Starbases / Minerals)
No. of Votes: 25
Briefvoice
Aeondrac
aledeth
Chaos Blade
Derek58
Gear
Gingganz
HearthBorn
Iron Wolf
Joshrand1982
Jrin
KnightDisciple
LaggPlaguedDuke
lbmaian
Muramasa
NHO
Nix
pbluekan
pheonix89
SynchronizedWritersBlock
Thebigpieman
tryrar
TyrialFrost
UberJJK
Void Stalker


Task: COUNCIL

[X][COUNCIL] 2317 Snakepit – Intelligence and EC Reorg
No. of Votes: 18
aledeth
Aeondrac
Deathbybunnies
Derek58
Forgothrax
HearthBorn
Iron Wolf
Jrin
LaggPlaguedDuke
Muramasa
NHO
Night
Nix
pbluekan
SynchronizedWritersBlock
Theunderbolt
tryrar
UberJJK

[X][COUNCIL] 2317 Snakepit – Sydraxian Diplomacy, Shipyard Expansion, and Starfleet Reorg
No. of Votes: 12
Briefvoice
Chaos Blade
Gear
Goldenlima
Joshrand1982
KnightDisciple
Kyushiro
Nervos Belli
pheonix89
Thebigpieman
TyrialFrost
Void Stalker

[X][COUNCIL] 2317 Snakepit – Maximum Diplomacy, Maximum Colonies, Maximum Tech Teams, Some Berths, Slow Reorganization (406 pp)
No. of Votes: 4
AlphaDelta
Redhead222
UbeOne
Ukrainian Ranger

[X][COUNCIL] 2317 Snakepit – Strategic Diplomacy, Efficient Berths, and Reorg
No. of Votes: 4
lbmaian
fitzgerald
Gingganz
Muer'ci


Task: AMB

[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: Maintain a strong Forward Defense.
No. of Votes: 17
Briefvoice
aledeth
Chaos Blade
Deathbybunnies
Derek58
Forgothrax
Gear
Gingganz
Jrin
KnightDisciple
LaggPlaguedDuke
Muer'ci
pbluekan
Thebigpieman
TyrialFrost
UberJJK
Void Stalker

[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: Infrastructure Development.
No. of Votes: 9
Iron Wolf
Aeondrac
HearthBorn
Joshrand1982
Muramasa
NHO
Nix
SynchronizedWritersBlock
tryrar

Total No. of Voters: 38
 
Chaos Blade said:
I think the only times we should make direct influence on who joins first is when there are strategic considerations or the like, circumstances when having one member sooner than the other can give us meaningful advantages to our current goals/

But there should be other more political options for us to do, like talking to the parties, rather than a snakepit option.
Course, that option is not without risks as we would be butting in outside of our mandate and playing with the political power far more than we should. that said, trying to get an idea of whom is going to join first wouldn't be out of place, since we will need to start reorganizing and redirecting our assets and deployments once that happens.

That said I would love to have the risans join us soonish. we really need their Party Party :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do we know if it stacks? Like serial parallel builds are even shorter? I doubt it, but...
 
[Great, I'm gonna have to re-analyze]

Briefvoice said:
Truthfully I wonder if all plans, including mine, aren't overdoing the shipyard expansions. It is really hard to fill all those berths.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Once this tranche of berths is built, we can seriously consider just resting on berth construction for several years to come. That frees up resources to build defenses, for instance. I think it'll work out okay. It may be better to build berths in waves rather than one or two at a time every year anyway, in that it makes it easier for us to prioritize correctly on average over the long haul.

OneirosTheWriter said:
Blargh, okay, it's added in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While I think @Forgothrax's suggested price is/was kinda low, I am glad to see this as an option. We've really wanted to take serious action to solve the auxiliary problem, you've wanted to push us in that direction. It makes sense. One plausible explanation for the low price is that there is general Council support for the action, combined with the 'porkbarrel' aspect of getting a yard for Ferasa (which has some prominent Development politicians).
 
Deathbybunnies said:
Council spending seems fine to me, not really a fan of that ambition. I agree that considering one of the political parties an enemy is a bad idea, but I disagree that deliberately cozying up to them is a good idea either - they're already in power, we don't need to suck up to them.

We're giving them what they want in regards to logistical development anyway, we don't need to hand them political victories to our detriment.

[X][COUNCIL] 2317 Snakepit – Intelligence and EC Reorg
[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: Maintain a strong Forward Defense.
- (Complete at least six Forward Defense technologies, put a Starbase in every Border Zone, and complete the first slide of Foreign Analysis Research for both the Harmony of Horizon and the Klingon Empire.)
- FD "technologies" means 6 full slides.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not to our detriment. I genuinely believe that we need to perform long-term development within the next 5-10 years with an outlook for the next 10-20 years, and would prefer to promote a shift in focus that way over a goal that we're going to be doing the broad outlines of for certain anyway.

It's not that I think the FD ambition is bad though. It's good, and I had been voting for it for a time. But after reflection, it just doesn't represent what I think we need in the longest term.

Briefvoice said:
Thanks, thanks, that's a good explanation. I am still totally opposed, but I at least understand your point.

If I were to make a similar point, I want the Forward Defense goal to lay the groundwork for an Expansion-focused Starfleet that actively tries to seek out information on new threats or potential allies before they end up on our shores. That gets information faster on polities like Horizon and that makes a point on keeping a close tab on what other great powers are up to. Outward focused rather than inward, creating ground to completely encircle the Federation with border zones in 20 years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, I think it's just a matter of priority and, in some aspects of the FD goal, practicality.

Briefvoice said:
Now that smacks of "you're not looking ahead" and is annoying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, it's not really directed at you specifically. But to give some examples: I think the idea that we've filled our logistical needs with member world berth builds, which I've seen some posters claim, for example, is a good example of looking 2-3 years behind rather than 5-20 years ahead. I think that advocating for the massive auxiliary shipyard expansion even though we've already "caught up" in builds is a good example of looking 5-20 years ahead rather than 2-3 years behind. That's the primary reason I swapped to the 40+8pp aux yards, and I think you had similar reasons.

I think the idea that we build to our current needs in SYO is looking 2-3 years behind given that the typical build time of a ship is 2-3 years. Often we DO get away from this problem. Sometimes we don't. Bringing in the Kepler when most of our problems right now are military is a great example of looking far enough ahead. Continuing to spam Excelsior-A rather than looking at what points that design is A) enough in number for our needs and B) needs to be replaced is perhaps not looking far enough ahead. And so on.
 
Last edited:
... or we could just not build two E-As. They are the best generalists we have now, yes, but we have upcoming ships that are better than the E-A in certain roles as well as being cheaper. We have enough hulls and resources to start specialization, and we really should.
 
Forgothrax said:
... or we could just not build two E-As. They are the best generalists we have now, yes, but we have upcoming ships that are better than the E-A in certain roles as well as being cheaper. We have enough hulls and resources to start specialization, and we really should.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They tend to serve as the flagship of any task force which we can spare them for, and they will be in place before we can mass deploy Keplers and Ambassadors.
 
Excelsiors we build now won't be available for very LONG before we can mass deploy Keplers and Ambassadors. I can see why we might rather save the resources.
 
aledeth said:
Just out of curiosity, which roles do you think need to be updated with that option? Are you hoping that it would allow us to get around the +2 Militarization from updating the Combat Frigate requirement via the Tactical Ops vote?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

One thing that bothers me is that our best garrison ships for the next dozen years isnt actually called a garrison frigatte, it is a "Science Frigatte", all while there is a garrison frigatte role that we will probably either need to develop another ship for or ditch at some point.

We probably will also need to define a new role for the Excellsior, since we plan to build more of them despite them being obsolete from a role viewpoint.
There is also currently no role for the Constellations despite us building more of them.


We are currently not caring or interacting with the role mechanic much at all, which seems really silly.
 
[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: To Boldly Go into the 20s
  • Part 1: Latest and Greatest
    • Begin construction on:
      • 10 Ambassadors
      • 10 Kepler
      • 5 Renniassances
      • 5 Flowers
    • Design a Flower-class Next-Generation Frigate
  • Part 2: Foundation
    • Build enough auxiliaries to meet current Starfleet peacetime needs
    • Commission at least one more Engineering team
    • Expand Auxiliary Command resources such that growth can be met organically
  • Part 3: A Careful Outward Gaze
    • Designate Frontier Zones and Border Zones encircling the
    • Complete at least 5 Forward Defense techs
    • Have at least one Explorer per Border Zone and Frontier Zone
  • Part 4: Internal Readiness
    • Have a ship with S >= 5 and P >= 5 in every sector
    • Have at least one sector flagship per sector
    • Have at least two ships per sector
 
Void Stalker said:
They tend to serve as the flagship of any task force which we can spare them for, and they will be in place before we can mass deploy Keplers and Ambassadors.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We already have more than enough to serve as flagships, and it's notable that cruisers can also serve as flagships. Even original flavor Consties.

While they may be in place earlier, savings will allow us to make a larger mass deployment of Keplers for use. We want to push out the largest possible wave so that we can have them deployed ASAP. They are basically designed to a T for rapidly racking up experience in order to become more capable, and we want them online ASAP for Mutual Support purposes.

Keplers can also respond to each other's events, unlike Excelsiors. There is a ceiling on how many explorers we want dealing with events, since only 1 Explorer can respond to each event.

Ambys are also so much better than Excelsiors that we are going to want to upgrade to them ASAP. They're not much more costly except in SR (7/7/6 crewing vs 6/5/5 isn't much different) and they are much more capable.
 
aledeth said:
Just out of curiosity, which roles do you think need to be updated with that option? Are you hoping that it would allow us to get around the +2 Militarization from updating the Combat Frigate requirement via the Tactical Ops vote?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not so much that we need the sweeping tactical review to get any particular designs we want (and certainly not to circumvent the +2 mil, the next design we are likely to develop comes closest to being a Centaur successor and as I have argued before there is no reason we'd need to label it as a combat frigate), it's that the system currently isn't really doing the job it's supposed to; the predefined roles aren't very detailed and don't fully describe why we want a particular class and how we intend to use it, and they precede the current battle system and don't mesh very well with it.

With the current roles it works like this:

We discuss what sort of ship we want -> we try out a few designs and decide we like them -> we look for a role to justify that sort of design -> we tweak the requirements to allow for the designs we actually wanted -> we request a design project -> we design the class -> we build the ships, deploy them and hope they end up being used like we originally envisioned.

What the process would ideally look like:

We discuss what sort of ships we want and what we want them for -> we informally come up with a rough role profile with essential capabilities and some nice to haves -> we investigate how much of that is feasible in a single design -> we adjust the rough role profile (repeat these two steps if needed)-> we write up a detailed role profile, including how the class is supposed to operate as garrison ship, what sort of missions it should be picked for with priority and what sort of missions it should avoid, how the class would be deployed and used in battle and so on -> we request a role that accurately describes what we actually want -> we request the design project -> we design the class -> we build the ships and deploy them
 
Last edited:
[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: In 10 years from now, the Federation will have twice as many members as it currently has.
 
I still think Tellar Prime is the right place for a new aux yard given it's location on the logistics loop and the Tellerites hat of solid heavy industry and engineering ships (and feel like one of the more neglected of the original 4 founding races), but don't want to split voted even more.

Edit. Given we are catching up on shipping with out other yards, having this one have more engineering and prospector ships as Amarkia builds hospitals would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Don't view the infrastructure development as giving a goal to Development, guys, or even view that as a bad thing. Viewing a party as an Enemy Party and trying to secretly undermine it is like, not a good thing? Especially since they haven't done much to really clip our wings.

Instead, view it as a political win for us. It'll meet a need we have -- logistics -- but we are also signalling to N'Gir early in her term that we take her goals seriously. So next time she's like, not a bitch.

But like leaving politics aside logistics independence will be very helpful to us in the future, particularly if we later ALSO adopt the FD ambition and have more starbases to supply.
 
Here's some preliminary ideas on a full Tactical reorganization:

Heavy Explorer
Component Needs: FYM-Capable, Explorer Frame, Medium+ Operations Frame
Stat Needs: Must have 8+ Science, Presence, Combat.
Scale Needs: No max-size or crew, minimum 2mt.
Intention: To conduct Five-Year-Missions, be capable of extended unsupported missions, handle severe science anomalies and conduct high-level diplomacy.
Combat Role: Serves as fleet flagships in the Vanguard and Heavy Metal phases.
Restrictions: None.
Currently fulfilled by: Ambassador project, Blooded+ Explorer Corps Excelsior-A.

Sector Flagship
Component Needs: Explorer or Cruiser Frame, Medium+ Operations Frame
Stat Needs: Must have 6+ Science, Presence, Combat, Defense.
Scale Needs: No max-size or crew, minimum 1.5mt.
Intention: To anchor sector garrisons supported or unsupported, perform long-range patrols, handle severe science anomalies and conduct high-level diplomacy.
Combat Role: Serves as fleet center in the Vanguard and Heavy Metal phases.
Restrictions: None.
Currently fulfilled by: Excelsior-A

General Cruiser
Component Needs: Cruiser Frame
Stat Needs: 4+ stat average, minimum 4 Defence
Scale Needs: 1-1.5mt
Intention: To be the first-line of response to sector events, and to form the backbone of the fleet in battle.
Combat Role: To form the backbone of the fleet in the Vanguard and Heavy Metal phases.
Restrictions: None.
Currently filled by: Renaissance

Garrison Cruiser
Component Needs: Cruiser Frame
Stat Needs: 3+ stat average, minimum of 4 Defence
Scale Needs: Any
Intention: To respond quickly to sector events in peacetime, to cover all types of event response during emergencies, and to contribute in all phases of a battle.
Combat Role: To bolster the Skirmish or Vanguard lines as necessary and backup any other fleet role.
Restrictions: None.
Currently filled by: Constellation-A, Constitution-B

Garrison Frigate
Component Needs: Frigate Frame, < 80SR
Stat Needs: Minimum 3+ all stats, 4+ Science, Presence, Defence, Shield.
Scale Needs: Any
Intention: Bolster ability to protect and manage sectors within Federation space. Designed to be capable of responding competently to most events, and to anchor the Skirmishing forces in battle.
Restrictions: None.
Combat Role: To backup the primary Minesweepers and Scouts, to form the bulk of the Skirmish forces, and to bolster the Vanguard force if necessary.
Currently filled by: Upcoming Garrison Frigate Project, Centaur-A (depreciated)

Combat Frigate
Component Needs: Frigate Frame, Large Tactical Frame, < 60 SR, 1+ Torpedoes
Stat Needs: 3+ Combat, 2+ Defence, 2+ Shield
Scale Needs: Any
Intention: Bolster fleet's ability to compete in combat.
Combat Role: To escort the Vanguard into battle, backup the other Minesweepers, and participate in the Skirmish line as numbers demand.
Restrictions: No solo response to planned Presence events.
Currently filled by: Miranda-A

Science Frigate
Component Needs: Frigate Frame, Medium+ Operations Frame, Small Tactical Frame, < 100 SR
Science Lab, LR+Nav Sensors
Stat Needs: 5+ Science, 3+ Presence, Max 2 Combat
Scale Needs: Any
Intention: A ship to replace the Oberth as a more capable, all around platform for science, medium-range exploration, and fast courier needs.
Combat Role: To serve as primary Minesweeper and primary fleet Scout. Enters battle with the Skirmish line.
Restrictions: No solo response to planned Combat events. Avoid Heavy Metal phase where possible.
Currently filled by: Kepler Project

Key points:
- Adds "Combat Role" and "Restrictions" to all roles. I would hope these additions would be okay by @OneirosTheWriter but if they aren't I don't see much point in the sweeping reorganization.
- Re-organized our explorers into a Heavy Explorer and a Sector Flagship. This is an implementation of a de-facto set of roles we've had since the Ambassador project started. Notably, it allows a Cruiser sector flagship in the future with little fuss, as we aren't yet sure if our next big ship will be a Light Explorer or a Heavy Cruiser.
- Updated the Garrison Frigate role for the likely Centaur-A replacement (which would be an ideal new skirmish frigate also).
- Doesn't update the Combat Frigate role as that might require militarization. When we do update this role, we could add whatever tasks we think are appropriate to the designs we want at that time. Likely a vanguard frigate.
- Adds a Garrison Cruiser and puts the Constellation-A and Constitution-B into that role, as that's where they'll be as we eventually have enough Rennies. Would also leave open a garrison cruiser design (event response cruiser essentially) if this role is updated, or could eventually depreciate the role entirely.

That said, this is all preliminary spitballing and I'm sure others have other ideas.
 
Last edited:
What are your thoughts on this ambition?

[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: To Boldly Go into the 20s
  • Part 1: Latest and Greatest
    • Begin construction on:
      • 10 Ambassadors
      • 10 Kepler
      • 5 Renniassances
      • 5 Flowers
    • Design a Flower-class Next-Generation Frigate
  • Part 2: Foundation
    • Build enough auxiliaries to meet current Starfleet peacetime needs
    • Commission at least one more Engineering team
    • Expand Auxiliary Command resources such that growth can be met organically
  • Part 3: A Careful Outward Gaze
    • Designate Frontier Zones and Border Zones encircling the
    • Complete at least 5 Forward Defense techs
    • Have at least one Explorer per Border Zone and Frontier Zone
  • Part 4: Internal Readiness
    • Have a ship with S >= 5 and P >= 5 in every sector
    • Have at least one sector flagship per sector
    • Have at least two ships per sector

[X][COUNCIL] 2317 Snakepit – Sydraxian Diplomacy, Shipyard Expansion, and Starfleet Reorg
 
Last edited:
Random Member said:
You're trying to do way too much. Each of your plan's Parts would qualify as a pretty extensive ambition on their own.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Briefvoice said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How does this sound?

[X][AMB] Announce new Starfleet Ambition: Fleet 2320s
The Federation's face consists of the ships that make up Starfleet. It is time that we bring our fleet into the new decade. To this end, Starfleet will:
  • Begin construction on:
    • 10 Ambassadors
    • 10 Kepler
    • 5 Renniassances
  • Design and begin the prototype of a Next Generation Frigate
  • Complete research on:
    • 2320s Ship Design Techs
 
Last edited:
3+3.5+(years before research is ready) means we may not achieve a next generation frigate out of prototyping and into production within 10 years. 2319 would do it, but 2322 would be too late. Also please don't push your pet ship name in a vote...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top